But the effort put into trying to support RC traditions with Scripture is so that we not do as noble Bereans did with such a heart as they, but rather than objectively examining the evidence to ascertain the veracity of official Rc teaching, we simply submit to it.
Of course, in practical application, as described in my above post, that still does not eliminate the problem of needing some interpretation.
eter had no more authority to hand down his Apostolic office and gifts than Judas did.
They will counter that Judas was succeeded, but which was to maintain the original number, rather than 11, but where are Rome's 12 apostles? And when did they ever elect a pope by the OT means of casting lots, which eliminates the political machinations that resulted in the mess Rome would like to forget, and the Holy Spirit's supposed preference for Italians.
And from Catholic scholarship you have much testimony contrary to the fantasy of a pope reigning supreme over the church from the 1st century.
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,.
Then you have the messy business of "unbroken" succession.
The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.
Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by the cardinals alone (see CONCLAVE) was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of the schism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of the Roman Curia. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
I kind of expected some Jews now and then to be Pope since the Jerusalem Church had many. Yes all those Italians as head honcho of the 'universal Roman church.'