Expert: J.M.J. West - 5/7/2009

Question
QUESTION: Why does the RC Church insist that they are the 'true' mother church simply due to Apostolic succession when nowhere in the bible is there statements indicating a special office is being passed on but rather a true teaching??  Isn't the true Church of God's foundation upon the prophets and the apostles with Christ as the corner stone - the mere image of a foundation - a one time structure not to be added to -  indicates a solid basis supporting a future building - the true Church?  No elaborate, powerful offices were past on as they were unnecessary as Christ is our High Priest. Only His teachings which the apostles had revealed to them directly, hence their unique position of authority.  No one else.

ANSWER: This is a very good question, and the crux of the Christian faith and how one responds to the call of Christ is buried within the answer.  Christ came to fulfill all that was foreshadowed in the Old Testament (OT).  Just as the OT had a priestly line of succession, so too ought we to expect this in the New Testament (NT) and indeed find it there.  

Apostolic Christianity refers to the faith, authority, and power given by Christ to his apostles, and which they in turn passed on to their successors.  It originated with Christ, who said called his 12 to replace the pharisees who weren't doing their jobs.

Matthew 9:35-10:3 shows us Jesus lamenting that Israel, God’s people, were “like sheep without a shepherd”, and he said to pray that the master of the harvest sends out more laborers, for the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few, and then he immediately called his 12 and gave them a unique authority.  This confirms in part what he said about preparing new wineskins for the new wine, (the church for the holy spirit), because the new wine would burst old wine skins (the Levitical priesthood, set up in Exodus).  To these 12, with Peter at their head, he gave much authority: he gave them the authority that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,” (Matt 18:18); he gave them the authority to forgive sins (John 20:20).  

And to one of them, Simon, he gave the name of “Rock” (“Kepha” in Aramaic, “Petros” in Greek, both meaning “rock”) and the promise that “upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”  He then gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”, with a special reiteration of the blessing that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:16ff).  These keys hearken directly to the keys the Davidic king would give to his prime minister, who oversaw the king’s duties in the kings stead, including leading the other ministers when necessary (Cf. Isaiah 22:22).  These keys symbolize very clearly an office, and all of the apostles shared in a similar office (though only Peter and his successors bear the aforementioned keys).  We can actually see the office of Judas being passed to another, Matthias, in Acts 1, at the behest of Peter!  Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit, the “spirit of truth”, would guide the Church “into the remembrance of all that I have said.” (John 14, 16).  For this reason St. Paul rightly says that the church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).   And all of the bishops in the church have been thus been ordained in a line of bishops stretching all the way back to Christ calling his 12 in Matt 10 above, including the Pope who is the direct successor of Peter, the bearer of the keys!

So Apostolic Succession is Christ’ very safeguard on the truth.  And we can see this very early on in the life of the Church.  Hence Ignatius of Antioch could write, “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop…Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).  Without valid apostolic succession, belonging to the Church in the authority to bind and loose, we’d have no authoritative canon of the books which belong in scripture.  If we didn’t know what books belonged, we’d not know what books didn’t belong, and would read only what we supposed was scripture, and always with the caveat that any particular book may contain errors (even grave ones!).

The Church is the Body of Christ, and the body is one.  So, for this reason (amongst many others) it is fitting to belong the Catholic church, which stretches back through time to Christ Himself, the Head of the Church!

This being the case, only one Church can make the claim to be the fullness of Apostolic Christianity, and that would be the Catholic Church.  Here's what the earliest Christians said:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Hope that helps, we can go deeper if you like.

Pax Christi,

-J.M.J. West

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks for your answer - it is too long to reply to line by line so suffice it for now the following: First, the OT priesthood was full of faults and needed to be changed.  The book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is our only High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek and when He returns, the Father will make a new covenant with humankind and write His Law of Love upon our hearts. Now, no one denies that the Apostles pocessed authority over other believers which was tied to the direct revelations given by Christ that set them apart from everyone else in the Church. It was not an 'office' instituted by the Lord, designed to be passed on dynastically as was the OT faulty priesthood. Read Pauls letters particulary 1 Timothy and Titus. As an example, 2 Tim 1-2 states, 'You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and the things that you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these ENTRUST to the FAITHFUL men, who will be able to TEACH others also. And 2 Tim 4:1-6 quite clearly speaks of the tranmission of sound doctrine and not an authoritative office.  Last minor point, Christ called Peter, petros or little rock as He is called Petra the large, unmoveable rock. As Christ lives and sits at the Right hand of the Father, there is no need of an earthly office - just sound faithful teachings which the RC Church has drastically changed - without authority - through history - confession to priests, no meat on Fridays, Sunday worship, infant baptism, heaven, purgatory, and hell to name a few.  Reading the history of the Popes - especially the 'pornacracy' or reign of the harlots period in the 9th and 10th century, one wonders why so many still follow - though the largest 'religion' in the USA today is EX-Catholics like myself.  I hope you find the way as Isaiah stated.  Sorry if I angered you, it was never my intend.  Just get frustrated when intelligent people hold fast to the party line without a true, unprejudiced review of all the facts.

ANSWER: *Sorry if I angered you, it was never my intend. Just get frustrated when intelligent people hold fast to the party line without a true, unprejudiced review of all the facts.*

I'm going to answer this last part first. It’s hard to upset me, promise.

I was agnostic for years. I didn't just drink the kool-aid. Becoming Catholic was a decision made as the culmination of a very long, intellectual, and prayerful conversion. It is the faith which speak most closely to the Truth as I can discern it, requiring me to bite the fewest number of logical bullets, containing a very strong coherence and consistency, and giving me a firm foundation by which to understand, evaluate, and interact with other faiths (or lack of faiths). So please don't just assume I'm towing the party line, because I tried to stay away from the party line until I was absolutely convinced of it's absolute veracity. Someone as intelligent as you should be able to appreciate that - and given the very elementary objections you raise to Catholicism, I trust you'll be willing to learn more, simply so that you can say no to the strongest form of Catholicism available, not merely to a straw-man version of Catholicism which does not even represent what Catholicism teaches.

*First, the OT priesthood was full of faults and needed to be changed. The book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is our only High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek and when He returns, the Father will make a new covenant with humankind and write His Law of Love upon our hearts. *

In deed it was faulty, and indeed we DID need new hearts. But what the Father did in the old covenant isn't utterly irrelevant to us today, because as Augustine said, the New Testament is concealed in the old, the old revealed in the new. God set up a parallel version of what he intended for the New and Everlasting covenant"

OT: High Priest - Aaron
Ministerial Priesthood: Levites
Universal Priesthood: Israel

NT: High Priest - Christ
Ministerial Priesthood: The Bishops and Priests (Episcopoi and Presbuteroi, to use the NT terms)
Universal Priesthood: The Ecclesia (i.e. the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth").

The new and everlasting covenant prepared us to finally be what was foreshadowed in the old testament, the people of God.

*Now, no one denies that the Apostles pocessed authority over other believers which was tied to the direct revelations given by Christ that set them apart from everyone else in the Church. It was not an 'office' instituted by the Lord, designed to be passed on dynastically as was the OT faulty priesthood.*

“Let another take his office,” says Peter of the office held by Judas (Acts 1).  Not to mention the very fact that Jesus, the heir to the Davidic kingship gives “the keys to the kingdom” to Peter, which by it’s very nature symbolized an office.  Again that Isaiah 22:22 passage mentions very clearly the nature of the king’s prime minister, who bore the key to the kingdom, for whom “whatever he opens, none shall shut, and whatever he shuts, none shall open”.  This is very clearly what Christ, claimant to the Davidic Kingship, was doing in giving the Key to one of his 12 ministers.  Any 1st century Jew would have seen this and – regardless of whether or not they felt Jesus was the Christ – they would have said, “Oh, so this is who he intends to make his first prime minister”.

And the history of the church in the 1st century bears this out very explicitly.  Bishops, Priests and Deacons are all mentioned in scripture, and Paul warns Timothy not to ordain them too quickly either, because while these offices were to persist, they were not for everyone.  He makes this case in Ephesians 4 too, when he rhetorically asks “are all apostles?  Are all prophets?  Are all teachers?”  The answer being “no, but SOME are…”

* Read Pauls letters particulary 1 Timothy and Titus. As an example, 2 Tim 1-2 states, 'You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and the things that you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these ENTRUST to the FAITHFUL men, who will be able to TEACH others also.*

This is precisely what is happening!  The teaching is being passed to those with the authority to speak of it authoritatively (to bind and to loose), hence St. Paul also tells Timothy and Titus about the qualities a good bishop and deacon should have.  Those are OFFICES!

* Last minor point, Christ called Peter, petros or little rock as He is called Petra the large, unmoveable rock.*

I love this point.  Christ, in Matthew’s gospel, says “You are PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”  What we have here is a problem of homophones throwing you off.  

First, there is no distinction between PETROS and PETRA in 1st century Koine Greek.  This is found only in rather obscure poetry of a few centuries prior.  This is instead a move from feminine (PETRA) to masculine (O PETROS), which Jesus did to avoid calling Peter “Mrs. Rock.”, for a word which is normally feminine ( H PETRA).  Had he meant to call him a pebble, he’d have called him O LITHOS.

Moreover, the overwhelming evidence is for this being a stylistic change to the GREEK of Matthew, because Christ spoke Aramaic and named Simon KEPHA, the Aramaic equivalent of “big rock” (PETRA).  Many of Jesus’ Aramaic words are preserved in scripture, from the “TALITHA KUM” he says to the little girl (i.e. “get up”), to the “EPHITHA” when he heals the blind man (i.e. “be open”), to his words on the cross, “ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACTHINI” (quoting the opening of Psalm 22, “My god, My God, why have you abandoned me”).  You’ll find the transliteration of this in scripture, including the very first time Jesus and Simon meet, John 1:42, where he says “’You shall be called Cephas’ (which is translated PETROS)”.  That is John’s gloss about PETROS, clarifying it for his audience.  CEPHAS is a transliteration of KEPHA into Greek (and those are both transliterations of Greek into English, as the trail get’s more twisted!).  Jesus knew from the beginning that Peter would hold a special authority.

Consider further this:  Christ is giving a THREE FOLD BLESSING to Peter, each part itself in two parts, one part the blessing and one part the explanation of the blessing.

1A – Blessed are you, Simon son of John
1B – FOR flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my father in heaven.

2A – And I say to you that you are ROCK (PETROS/KEPHA/CEPHAS)
2B – AND upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

3A – And I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven
3B – THAT whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This would make no sense to have the primary referent of PETRA be anything other than Simon Peter.

Consider still further the following:

-Everytime the apostles are listed, Peter is listed first. (cf. Matt 10)
-It’s often “Peter and the Apostles”, but never “John and the Apostles” or “Matthew and the others”.  Peter is often spoken of distinctly from the apostles.
-John arrives at the tomb of Christ first, but waits for Peter to enter.
-The two on the road to Emmaus encounter Christ, then go to find the other disciples and pronounce to them that PETER has seen Christ! (Luke’s last chapter)
- Peter is mentioned by name 191 times in the NT.  The next most frequent name is John, mentioned a mere 48 times.
More here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

I’m sorry, but this objection just does not stand.  And the Early Church Fathers agree with me on this:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."  Clement of Rome, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

CF: http://scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

* As Christ lives and sits at the Right hand of the Father, there is no need of an earthly office - just sound faithful teachings which the RC Church has drastically changed - without authority*

Point the First: Christ himself established offices, and the Scriptures clearly show them being passed on (which is the point of an office in the first place), as does the consistent testimony of the early church fathers.

Point the Second:  The Catholic Church is teaching the same things today that it has always taught, as opposed to protestant Christianity which as factioned and fissured into what some estimate to be 30,000 denominations, each teaching competing and mutually irreconcilable “truths”, which is utterly against the original plan:

1) The Church is One:

“Father I pray that they may be one, even as you and I are one" (John 17:22-23)

“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing." (Philippians 2:2)

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:5-6)

"I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:1-6)

2) Factions and Denominations Were never in the Plan:

"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” (Mark 3.24)

"I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.  For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (1 Cor 11:18b-19)

"Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, ...and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:18-20)

"For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder." (2 Cor 12:20)

ONLY the Catholic Church can claim to teach the same things un-adulterated through time.  Most denominations accept things like Divorce and Remarriage, Contraception, and many even Abortion and Homosexuality – but one church only has stood firm on all of these issues, because morality does not change.

* confession to priests, no meat on Fridays, Sunday worship, infant baptism, heaven, purgatory, and hell to name a few.*

I’m only going to address these briefly, and would ask that you refrain from shot-gun apologetics

*confession to priests – Jesus ordered this when he gave his apostles the authority to FORGIVE or RETAIN sins (John 20:20)

*no meat on Fridays – This is a lower-cased t tradition, one which is merely a discipline which can, has, and does change.  It is, however a good practice.  Christ said in Matthew 5 “WHEN you fast”, not IF…the church has the authority to bind such practices if they are indeed beneficial.

*Sunday worship – The First day of the week, Sunday, the day that Christ rose, very early on became the norm for worship in the church, and is spoken of in the scriptures often (NOTE: “The Lord’s Day” is not the same as the Sabbath, but is the following day)
On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).
"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master." Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).
"The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest--abstraction from ills--preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord's Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth--a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).
"In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends of God." For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised--yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath--God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God." Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).
*infant baptism – As circumcision brought all males 8 days old or older into old covenant, so too does the new circumcision (Paul’s term) bring all into the new covenant.  Entire households were baptized (cf. Acts 16, both Lydia and the jailer), and Peter clearly says that baptism is for “you and your children” (acts 2).

*heaven, purgatory, and hell to name a few.-  I’m assuming yoru beef here is with Purgatory alone, not heaven and hell (correct me if I’m mistaken).

Paul himself clearly reference Purgatory both when he commends prayers for his deceased friend Onesimus (2 tim 1) and when he speaks of us being judged on “the Day”, and being “saved as through fire…suffering loss” (1 Cor 3).  There is no loss in heaven, no salvation in hell, and this is at judgment.  Plus it just makes sense.  We die attached to sin but there is no attachment to sin in heaven (“Nothing unclean may enter” (Rev 20)), so SOME change must happen, some cleansing or PURGING of our sinful nature, and to this state of change the church has merely applied the term “PURGatory”

* Reading the history of the Popes - especially the 'pornacracy' or reign of the harlots period in the 9th and 10th century, one wonders why so many still follow - though the largest 'religion' in the USA today is EX-Catholics like myself.*

The short answer is that infallibility does not take away free will, and that all popes (EVEN Peter, who was rebuked by Paul for ‘fearing the circumcised”) sin.  YES, some popes were scoundrels

Most Ex-catholics were poorly-catechized Catholics.  Might I suggest the following:

www.catholic.com
www.scripturecatholic.com

Nevertheless, thank you for your questions, and I’m willing to continue this debate if you find it profitable.

Peace of Christ,

-J.M.J. West



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: You are even more wordy than I am.  It makes it quite difficult to stay on topic and arrange my thoughts for reply without printing and re-reading your reply for several days in order to fully comprehend and address. So to attempt to answer let me start by saying, yes, I know there is a 'government' with 'offices' but not a dynastic succession - successive structure for order but not a power center like in Rome.  I apologize if I caused you to go into details I already agree too - again too wordy.  I don't know how I was using 'shot-gun' apologetics as I was just listing from my development in the RC Church.  That would be like me telling you to stop quoting the 'Church Fathers' and stick to the Bible only.  Why would I since the true man of God needs to put on the full armor of God to address any & all questions truthfully, per scripture?? No, I never bought Purgatory even as a youth, nor do I believe any human but Christ & the Father are in heaven. I don't believe in hell - especially Dante's allegory of it. I think far more than 'some' Popes were scoundrels and worse.  Concerning the Resurrection and Sunday worship.  Try honestly to read the Gospels about this event. Taken captive right after the nightly Passover meal, tried & convicted before 6:00 AM, crucified and died around 3:00 PM, was quickly prepared and entombed before sunset as in Jewish custom one must be clean for the high holy day to start at sunset, The Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Remained in the grave (Hell) for 3 24 hr. periods and arose just before sunset on Saturday as our Wafe Sheave offering.  Was 1st seen by the woman in the darkened morning hours of Sunday.  He said the only sign He would give was the sign of Jonah - which my 8th grade catechism taught was just an allegory yet our Lord uses this as His sole sign for the disbelievers.  No, the Catholic has not been the same or consistent since Constantine.  It has evolved via the Councils and each successive Emperor/Pope. It is a cunning mixture of the truth, pagan practices & philosophy - including Socrate's immortal soul beliefs during his lifetime (470-399 BC) to Tertullian re-emphasizing it again (160-230 AD) to Aquinas sealing the deal (1225-1274 AD). Your Lateran councils where you addressed Arianism, Simony and Celibacy which doesn't become 'law' until Gregory about 1582 AD and how the Church prospered with the additional revenues/lands. Your misguided Crusades - did Christ teach to kill in His name? to your partnerships with the German Reichs from Charlemagne to Hitler.  It took me about 50 yrs to see the error of my ways in a to & fro battle, but now I am grateful for where I stand.  No man can call another to salvation - it is by Grace of God through faith that salvation comes.  And now that I think of it, the 'keys to the kingdom' was given to a well grounded Jewish fisherman in the Law's of Moses and was directly taught by Christ for 3.5 yrs.  The Father revealed who His son was to him and Christ allowed him to see Him in vision with Elijah and Moses.  So whatever this man bound, would be correctly bound like his dream about the blanket and unclean animals - took awhile for him to understand it, but he eventually did.  If you compare the succession of Popes to Peter the leader of the Apostles, I feel it would be like comparing a boy with a gun to a Navy Seal who trained all his adult life.  Who would you trust to wield it righteously??  Sorry to be all over the map, but this is a hip reply and not well organized - I'm not doing term papers anylonger - lol :)

Answer
*You are even more wordy than I am.  It makes it quite difficult to stay on topic and arrange my thoughts for reply without printing and re-reading your reply for several days in order to fully comprehend and address.*

I try to be terse, but you gave me a lot :)

* So to attempt to answer let me start by saying, yes, I know there is a 'government' with 'offices' but not a dynastic succession - successive structure for order but not a power center like in Rome.*

What do you base this claim on?  All evidence from the way the church ACTUALLY organized itself from the 1st century on, to the scriptures cited,  points to the fact that there WAS apostolic succession.

* apologize if I caused you to go into details I already agree too - again too wordy.  I don't know how I was using 'shot-gun' apologetics as I was just listing from my development in the RC Church.*

“Shotgun Apologetics” is saying something akin to “The Church is wrong because A, B, C, D, E, and F, amongst other points”, when each point A through F could have a multiple page discussion itself.  Its unfair to your interlocutor (myself in this case) to have to address each point in the midst of addressing a dozen other points all more topical than A through F.

*That would be like me telling you to stop quoting the 'Church Fathers' and stick to the Bible only*

No, it wouldn’t.  Shotgun simply means throwing out more points of objection than can be sanely and cogently replied to in a short space and time.  I don’t mind going into each topic with you one at a time, but not in the midst of an overarching discussion of apostolic succession (which may very well be itself a foundational stone for understanding and accepting some of the other points).

* Why would I since the true man of God needs to put on the full armor of God to address any & all questions truthfully, per scripture?? *

Again, it’s not the kind of question, but the sheer number.

*No, I never bought Purgatory even as a youth, nor do I believe any human but Christ & the Father are in heaven.*

What about the 24 elders, humans, who are presented as being in heaven before the end of all things in Rev 5?  What about the “great cloud of witnesses” which surrounds us (Heb 12:1)

* I don't believe in hell - especially Dante's allegory of it.*

Hell is SELF-EXCLUSION from God.  Dante wasn’t writing a road-map, but, as you said, an allegorical work of poetry.

God is Love, and desires only love; but God is not a rapist and does not force his love.  The possibility of Hell is necessary precisely because God loves us and want’s us to love him freely.

Now, is it all fire and brimstone?  Not necessarily.  Heaven is also described with fire.  The highest choir of angels – the SERAPHIM – their name literally means “the burning ones”.  God is himself described as a fiery furnace which rids us of impurities (purges us, if you will).

Fire can have multiple meanings, and multiple meanings are in fact used in scripture.  Fire can purify, or it can consume and destroy.  The allegory is revealing most importantly a spiritual truth.

As Lewis wrote,

“there are  a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if
I were going to live only seventy years, but which I  had better bother about
very seriously if  I am going to live  for ever. Perhaps my  bad temper or my  
jealousy are gradually  getting  worse -so gradually  that the increase  in
seventy years will  not  be very noticeable. But it might be  absolute  hell  in
a million years:  in  fact, if  Christianity  is true, Hell is the  precisely  correct
technical  term  for what it  would  be.”

*I think far more than 'some' Popes were scoundrels and worse.*

And?

*Concerning the Resurrection and Sunday worship.  Try honestly to read the Gospels about this event. Taken captive right after the nightly Passover meal, tried & convicted before 6:00 AM, crucified and died around 3:00 PM, was quickly prepared and entombed before sunset as in Jewish custom one must be clean for the high holy day to start at sunset, The Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Remained in the grave (Hell) for 3 24 hr. periods and arose just before sunset on Saturday as our Wafe Sheave offering.  Was 1st seen by the woman in the darkened morning hours of Sunday.  He said the only sign He would give was the sign of Jonah - which my 8th grade catechism taught was just an allegory yet our Lord uses this as His sole sign for the disbelievers.*

Are you a SDA?

In Col. 2:16-17 Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath."
In Acts 20:7, we read of the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.  Likewise in 1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week," which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday, when they all met together and celebrated the Eucharist.
Heck, in Rev 1:10 John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ, the feast of the day upon which he rose, which was Sunday.
Add to that the consistent witness of the early church and you have a tough sell.
As for your timeline, Jesus died Friday afternoon (day 1), was in the tomb Friday evening through Saturday day (day 2), and he rose again on Sunday, which is why there was all the hub-bub about “the Lord’s Day”.  “Three days and three nights” is just a poetic but idiomatic expression in Hebrew for “a day”.  So is “evening came and morning followed” from Genesis 1, when there was no sun to make evening or morning.  For a more indepth analysis, see:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903chap.asp

*No, the Catholic has not been the same or consistent since Constantine.  It has evolved via the Councils and each successive Emperor/Pope. *

It has grown, it has developed, as a mustard seed develops – but it has not changed a teaching about the faith or about morality.

*It is a cunning mixture of the truth, pagan practices & philosophy - including Socrate's immortal soul beliefs during his lifetime (470-399 BC) to Tertullian re-emphasizing it again (160-230 AD) to Aquinas sealing the deal (1225-1274 AD).*

Soul sleep, then?

Revelation 6:9-10
When he broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of all the people who had been killed on account of the word of God, for witnessing to it.  They shouted aloud, "Holy, faithful Master, how much longer will you wait before you pass sentence and take vengeance for our death on the inhabitants of the earth?"

The Bible is saying that martyrs go to heaven before the Judgment. Note that this takes place before the resurrection, before the end of the world, before the Judgment, while life is going on as usual on the earth. Also, the martyrs, despite being "dead", have their own memories, and remember that they have been martyred.

* Your Lateran councils where you addressed Arianism, Simony and Celibacy which doesn't become 'law' until Gregory about 1582 AD and how the Church prospered with the additional revenues/lands.  *

Celibacy is the NORM, but not an irrevocable law.  It can change, has changed, and probably will change.  The Church has the right to ordain whom she pleases to the priesthood (Paul makes this clear when he admonishes Timothy not to lay hands to quickly, lest he ordain someone to an office who cannot handle it), and celibacy is the higher calling - St. Paul (1 Cor 7) and Christ (Matt 19:12) make this abundantly clear.  The Latin Rite of the Church NORMALLY ordains men who have FREELY chosen celibacy.  And it simply expects them to keep the pledge they have made.  St. Paul did the same thing when he spoke of widows.  Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (this same chapter permits it, see also Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists

*Your misguided Crusades - did Christ teach to kill in His name? *

We are called to turn the other cheek willingly, but also to defend the poor.   Christ himself commanded his 11 “if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (luke 22:35)

The Crusades were JUST WARS, just as it would be Just for the United States to go to war if Russia invaded Alaska and took it over by force, persecuting the citizens there.  

This is not to say that some of the actions which happened (like the horribly botched 4th crusade) were just.  But that’s on the individual sinners, not the Church.

*to your partnerships with the German Reichs from Charlemagne to Hitler. *

After World War II, the Head Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism and took the name Eugenio as his Christian name.  Eugenio was the name of Pope Pius XII (defamed falsely but often as “Hitler’s pope”), who did everything in his power to save the Jews and denounce Germany.

*If you compare the succession of Popes to Peter the leader of the Apostles, I feel it would be like comparing a boy with a gun to a Navy Seal who trained all his adult life.  Who would you trust to wield it righteously??*

This would actually work okay If the boy with the gun is he who himself grew up to be the Navy Seal.  Peter was the first pope, and each pope has handed on that authority, guarded by the holy spirit from TEACHING ERROR.