You conveniently ignore over 1000 years, first of all. You thus present a picture of a corrupt beast of a "Church" as if that was ALWAYS the Catholic Church. By presenting the Church in ONLY its bad side, what do you hope to accomplish - the presentation of unbiased, critical history, or a farce that attacks the straw man you love calling the Catholic Church? Perhaps you should glance at what you post, first.
Your comment about the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church also ignores the historical position of the Vatican I Council which states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
It sounds like you don't know what that means, even though I wrote you exactly the Catholic viewpoint. Clearly, it does not mean what you make it out to be. Also, this is not a new doctrine, as I posted quotes from the Early Church Fathers, such as Justin the Martyr - 150 AD. I think when you continue to ignore corrections, it LOOKS like you have other intentions than "correcting" us Catholics.
There is nothing incorrect or mean spirited with what this author has stated and none of the comments directed to me has dealt with the inaccuracy of three popes on the seat of Peter at the same time
There weren't three popes at once, there were three people all simultaneously CLAIMING to be the pope. If I claim to be the pope, does that mean there are two popes now? This is a political issue, certainly, not a theological one.
It is commanded by God for us to point out where we feel others may be in error and we do them and God a great disservice when we fail to do so
Agree. But at what point does one admit when they are wrong? I imagine the question can be reversed - and I will admit it when it is pointed out. But when over 1000 years of unanimous writing makes a claim, and is tossed out by you, can you then continue to make the above claim? That is why so many people are questioning your motives.
Regards
As a Presbyterian, I don't agree with the Catholics on everything, and would even assert that at the time of the Reformation, there was a lot of apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church. But at no time - ever - was the Church ever completely apostate. At no time did the gates of hell prevail against the Church. For all the crap that infiltrated - the Borgia popes come to mind - the Church has never been apostate. I think they are very wrong on some theological points, but they are not apostate.
Jo kus, would you agree with that assessment? Prior to the Catholic Reformation, the medieval church had a lot of apostasy, but at no time was it ever completely corrupt? I have heard Catholics say, if it weren't that Luther split from Rome, he would have been canonized for calling attention to the deplorable excesses that the Church endured.