[kosta50]

Which part don't you understand, friend? Do I have to do your homework? The authority was given to the Apostles to preach to the four corners of the world in the name of Trinity. The authority was not given to a buch of believers. As I remined one another Freeper, gathering of believers includes Gnostics and demons -- does that make it a legitimate church?

Do you deny history of the Church? Do you deny that Apostles perhaps knew what the Church was about better than a bunch of 21st century Southern Baptists whose sect appeared out the outgrowth of Protestant newcomers to Americas in the 17th century, pretty much out of nowhere, and was organized into a "church" a little more than a century ago (1845 to be more exact)? Let me ask you -- what do you base your conclusions on? What "feels" right? Feels good, feels bad? That's very Freudinan as far as I am concerned.

[deaconjim]

I certainly do not deny the history of the Church. That is, of course, why I am not Catholic.

I do believe that the Apostles knew more than a bunch of 21st century Southern Baptists, but I also believe they know more than a bunch of 21st century Catholics.

When I read my Old Testament, I can see how the church established by Moses was corrupted by the time Jesus arrived on the scene. He had little regard for their rules and traditions. It is my firm belief that he has the same opinion of the rules and traditions of the Catholic Church.