I appreciate your honest answer. It seems to me that there are two conceptions of ideal Christian unity. One is that all Christians should agree on essentials, and cooperate in social causes. The other is that all Christians should also belong to one visible body, unified not only in doctrine, but receiving the same sacraments and under the same authority. For a long time, I held to the former conception of ideal Christian unity. The more I meditated on John 17, however, the more I came to the belief that the unity Christ desired all Christians to have was more than mere agreement on essentials and collaboration in social endeavours. It was supposed to be a unity like that of the Trinity.
That's when my question (Which Church is the one true Church, the Church Christ founded?) started coming to the surface. Did the Church Christ founded disappear? If so, then the gates of hell would have indeed prevailed against it. But if the gates of hell didn't prevail against it, I thought, then one of the existing Churches must be the one true Church into which all Christians should be incorporated.
So I asked myself, which of the existing Churches can make such a claim, to be the Church that Christ founded. (I'm not talking about any local church, e.g. "the church at Jerusalem"; I'm talking about the *institution* constituted of local churches.) The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, was founded in 1936. The Presbyterian Church in American (of which I was a member for a number of years) was founded in 1973. No such denomination was even a candidate. The only real candidates that could claim to be the Church Christ founded were the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. Reading the fathers, especially what they said about the nature of the authority given to Peter with the "keys", and reading Soloviev, helped me come to the conclusion that it was the Catholic Church.
I knew that the kind of unity that Christ was praying (in John 17) for all His followers to have could only be present where the authority was unified. If the authority was a plurality or disunified, the Church structure could not 'hold' the kind of unity Christ desired. Moreover, I saw in John 17 that the unity of Christ and the Father is *hierarchical*. Christ obeys the Father, even though Christ is equal to the Father. The unity we see in the Trinity is a *hierarchical* unity. Therefore, since that is the kind of unity that Christ is praying that we [His followers] would have, and since there is no greater unity than the unity of God, therefore, the kind of unity Christ's Church must have is one in which there is a hierarchy with a unified head.
That is a complete contrast to the individualistic form of Christianity in which the believer submits only to his own interpretation of Scripture. That form of Christianity can never achieve the unity that Christ prays (in John 17) for His followers to have. That individualistic form of Christianity will continue to fragment into as many 'churches' as there individuals, as each person follows his own interpretation, and does what is "right in his own eyes".
That's a brief overview of what I've learned in this process of answering the question I asked you. I don't know if it could be helpful to you or not. I know you have some (almost self-described) 'baggage' from your Catholic past. I didn't have any of that, and so it was much easier for me, I think, to come into the Catholic Church. I pray that God continues to bless you and guide you as you work out all these things.
-A8
I appreciate your belief and perspective, and you are right when you say I carry some baggage with me, but I really don't think that is what made me question and ultimately have to distance myself from a faith that tells me I must believe in the doctrines of the immaculate conception, purgatory and papal infallibility in order to even begin to embark upon the narrow, salvific road. I cannot imagine St. Paul and St. Peter preaching these doctrines to their congregations at parity with preaching Christ crucified. I think it is error to bind the faithful's conscience to these doctrines. I do agree with Luther, it is not wise to go against conscience, and I'm not going to do that.
I made my confirmation when I was 13 years old. I was confirmed by a bishop who had never laid eyes on me or a single one of my classmates. He could have easily made a few trips to all of the schools in his diocese to get to know the kids whose job it was to shepherd. The episcopacy of the apostles was a teaching office. My bishop taught us nothing. If the episcopacy has devolved into mainly an administrative position, it is not equal to the episcopacy of the apostles, as far as I can see. If my confirmation would have taken place when I was 18 or so, I would have refused it, because I never would have taken a vow to defend what I perceived and perceive as inchoate doctrine.
These doctrines are not of apostolic origin in my view. In fact, it's likely by present day RC doctrine that the apostles could run the danger of excommunication. The church needs to repent just like those individuals in her midst who have erred and who have a problem with pride when they are called to do so. I don't say this to denigrate the church, as St. Augustine said, she is a whore, but she is my mother. The one problem I have with that teaching of Augustine's -and which can easily tie into the donatist problem you mention- is that if your mother is a whore it is likely she's a lousy mother who can even put you in danger and jeopordize your life by the men she brings home.
A, if the RCC's position on doctrines mentioned was such that, allowing that I did not undermine them in public or in private (think Hannity), that I remained teachable concerning them and that I didn't have to subscribe to them, I would still be RC.
I've heard all the arguments arrayed against me, first among them being that I am luciferian in that my disposition as outlined here, is one of truculence and ultimately equal to Lucifer's non-serviam. The others being, when they are reduced, to me being not smart enough to understand what said doctrines really mean and as such consigning my case to the ash heap of invincible ignorance. Let he who will, judge me as he pleases or sees fit, I am not moved by that in one direction or another.
I realize the RCC church doesn't accept my views and does not want me or my kind in its midst. With that in mind, I do not knock on its door nor agitate it nor trouble it. I've taken this lonely path without regret, and I've gained much from it. I'm a pilgrim searching for a good and loving pastor and a pilgrim who seeks to know God through His Son. I don't believe that's a crime against God or His church. I know that we are not in agreement with what I've written here, but I do wish you the peace of the Lord, and I do hope you wish me the same.