[HarleyD]

"drunkenness, schizophrenia, paranoia, inability to control his libido, ...This is hardly the person you want to build a religious foundation upon."

Funny. We can say the same thing about a good many of the Popes, Cardinals and the rest of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church during this same era. If you want to throw stones, remember the stain glass windows.

I suppose historical revisionism is in the eye of the beholder.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"We can say the same thing about a good many of the Popes, Cardinals and the rest of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church during this same era."

You are fundamentally incorrect. The Church is indeed made up of sinners, and as such they have claimed the highest positions of authority, Judas the Apostle being a noteworthy example. The Church, however, was founded by Jesus Christ, and the Apostolic faith which he founded was handed down through the Church. As such, it is Holy because Christ is Holy, not because all of it's members are Holy.

16 centuries after the time of Christ, a number of men chose to invent their own religions. That is a fundamentally different situation than that of the Church.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

A very few of the popes and cardinals. Can the hyperbole, Harley. It does not make you credible. See my response to this slander against Luther. I admire Luther personally but I fault him theologically and critique some aspects of his personal life. I try to be fair and accurate. Why don't you try reading actual history of the popes and see how many were drunkards and schizophrenics?

[magisterium]

In two thousand years, there have been not much more than a half-dozen truly bad popes, and another dozen who were pretty mediocre. That's not a bad ratio, and merely fulfills the whole concept of the parable of the wheat and the tares.

No one would argue with the concept that there may have been a few popes who had the tendencies listed here. But, unlike Luther, they were not the *founders* of a religion. One might expect that, just like with Peter, *if* Christ wanted to start anew in the 1500's, he would have picked a man to lead the movement who could at least *overcome* his excesses subsequent to such a great commission or calling. The tree called Catholicism has had its share of defective leaves, but at least the seed was good. One should expect no less in the beginnings of any Christ-decreed (for the sake of argument) "Reformation."