What we have lost...and the Road to Restoration

[To Know is to Serve]

What we have lost...and the Road to Restoration (1-5)

[winsome]

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

[epiphanius]

Some Catholics [...] seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Winsome,

That is an interesting observation, but it raises a new question: what is your understanding of the pre-Reformation Church?

[mclees8]

-

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up? I don't claim any denominational faith but I cam up in protestant churches. True prots have their good and bad just as you and the RCC. Many may just not know the church historically. You have to want to know that but salvation does not hang on that but on faith. Even the most basic believers should understand the Christian faith was founded 2000 years ago. Your hang up is history identification. I call it positional thinking. You know letters facts and evidences and mostly when the church was first call Catholic. You just buy like they have taught you that the RCC is the same Catholic that Ignatius spoke of. The church consisted then as it does today just a different time. Even though you can say there was a certain institution then it was not anything we see today or even after 300 or 400AD when the church got ambitious for political power forming a church power structure with all the fancy robes and stuff and the titles of rank and office. This was the down fall of the church that separates  the RCC from what was referred to as Catholic in  110AD. Before that they were just Christians and even that was a while after the church was call anything but believers in Christ just the same as the church today consists of those who believe in Christ. No Catholic or Protestant. The true definition of your word Catholic belongs to all of us who claim Christ as savior. It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it. So yes the church is two thousand years old but the RCC we see that flaunts its authority  was not until after 325 AD

[mclees8]

What we have lost...and the Road to Restoration (1-5)

What we need to restore is our true spirit of Christ rather than worry so much over decaying buildings. restore the temple of the heart and the rest will fall in place. revival of our true faith is the answer.

[winsome]

-

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up? I don't claim any denominational faith but I cam up in protestant churches. True prots have their good and bad just as you and the RCC. Many may just not know the church historically. You have to want to know that but salvation does not hang on that but on faith. Even the most basic believers should understand the Christian faith was founded 2000 years ago. Your hang up is history identification. I call it positional thinking. You know letters facts and evidences and mostly when the church was first call Catholic. You just buy like they have taught you that the RCC is the same Catholic that Ignatius spoke of. The church consisted then as it does today just a different time. Even though you can say there was a certain institution then it was not anything we see today or even after 300 or 400AD when the church got ambitious for political power forming a church power structure with all the fancy robes and stuff and the titles of rank and office. This was the down fall of the church that separates  the RCC from what was referred to as Catholic in  110AD. Before that they were just Christians and even that was a while after the church was call anything but believers in Christ just the same as the church today consists of those who believe in Christ. No Catholic or Protestant. The true definition of your word Catholic belongs to all of us who claim Christ as savior. It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it. So yes the church is two thousand years old but the RCC we see that flaunts its authority  was not until after 325 AD

Rant...rant... rant.

[mclees8]

-

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up? I don't claim any denominational faith but I cam up in protestant churches. True prots have their good and bad just as you and the RCC. Many may just not know the church historically. You have to want to know that but salvation does not hang on that but on faith. Even the most basic believers should understand the Christian faith was founded 2000 years ago. Your hang up is history identification. I call it positional thinking. You know letters facts and evidences and mostly when the church was first call Catholic. You just buy like they have taught you that the RCC is the same Catholic that Ignatius spoke of. The church consisted then as it does today just a different time. Even though you can say there was a certain institution then it was not anything we see today or even after 300 or 400AD when the church got ambitious for political power forming a church power structure with all the fancy robes and stuff and the titles of rank and office. This was the down fall of the church that separates  the RCC from what was referred to as Catholic in  110AD. Before that they were just Christians and even that was a while after the church was call anything but believers in Christ just the same as the church today consists of those who believe in Christ. No Catholic or Protestant. The true definition of your word Catholic belongs to all of us who claim Christ as savior. It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it. So yes the church is two thousand years old but the RCC we see that flaunts its authority  was not until after 325 AD

Rant...rant... rant.

Yep that's what I thought.  That's what you say when you know its the truth and you don't want to admit it.
Religious pride can be terrible stronghold

[AVZ]

-

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up? I don't claim any denominational faith but I cam up in protestant churches. True prots have their good and bad just as you and the RCC. Many may just not know the church historically. You have to want to know that but salvation does not hang on that but on faith. Even the most basic believers should understand the Christian faith was founded 2000 years ago. Your hang up is history identification. I call it positional thinking. You know letters facts and evidences and mostly when the church was first call Catholic. You just buy like they have taught you that the RCC is the same Catholic that Ignatius spoke of. The church consisted then as it does today just a different time. Even though you can say there was a certain institution then it was not anything we see today or even after 300 or 400AD when the church got ambitious for political power forming a church power structure with all the fancy robes and stuff and the titles of rank and office. This was the down fall of the church that separates  the RCC from what was referred to as Catholic in  110AD. Before that they were just Christians and even that was a while after the church was call anything but believers in Christ just the same as the church today consists of those who believe in Christ. No Catholic or Protestant. The true definition of your word Catholic belongs to all of us who claim Christ as savior. It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it. So yes the church is two thousand years old but the RCC we see that flaunts its authority  was not until after 325 AD

All I see in the video's is that apparently the Catholic Church is struggling with the same disintegration as the Protestant Church.

The only issue I have is that to some extend reformists are labeled as the culprits.
I wonder if a Catholic would look deep down in his heart he would find himself as the origin of the abandonment of his faith.

Anyway, I sympathize with much that is shown and fear that the Catholic Church is going to be in for a rough ride.

[winsome]

-

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up? I don't claim any denominational faith but I cam up in protestant churches. True prots have their good and bad just as you and the RCC. Many may just not know the church historically. You have to want to know that but salvation does not hang on that but on faith. Even the most basic believers should understand the Christian faith was founded 2000 years ago. Your hang up is history identification. I call it positional thinking. You know letters facts and evidences and mostly when the church was first call Catholic. You just buy like they have taught you that the RCC is the same Catholic that Ignatius spoke of. The church consisted then as it does today just a different time. Even though you can say there was a certain institution then it was not anything we see today or even after 300 or 400AD when the church got ambitious for political power forming a church power structure with all the fancy robes and stuff and the titles of rank and office. This was the down fall of the church that separates  the RCC from what was referred to as Catholic in  110AD. Before that they were just Christians and even that was a while after the church was call anything but believers in Christ just the same as the church today consists of those who believe in Christ. No Catholic or Protestant. The true definition of your word Catholic belongs to all of us who claim Christ as savior. It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it. So yes the church is two thousand years old but the RCC we see that flaunts its authority  was not until after 325 AD

All I see in the video's is that apparently the Catholic Church is struggling with the same disintegration as the Protestant Church.

As I tried to explain in my post, all you see in the video is a very distorted and one-sided view.

[mclees8]

-

Many years ago now a television station sent out two film crews to make a short documentary about a city in the UK.

One focussed on all the negative things and gave a portrait of a decaying/delerict city, dirty, crime ridden –the pits of a place to live.

The other focussed on all the positive things, regeneration, cleanliness, parks and leisure facilities, falling crime – and showed a vibrant, exciting place to live

It's very easy so select out the negative and exaggerate it to seem the norm, sweeping generalisations, false correlations etc., all bathed in highly emotive language with no real evidence for the claims made.

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up? I don't claim any denominational faith but I cam up in protestant churches. True prots have their good and bad just as you and the RCC. Many may just not know the church historically. You have to want to know that but salvation does not hang on that but on faith. Even the most basic believers should understand the Christian faith was founded 2000 years ago. Your hang up is history identification. I call it positional thinking. You know letters facts and evidences and mostly when the church was first call Catholic. You just buy like they have taught you that the RCC is the same Catholic that Ignatius spoke of. The church consisted then as it does today just a different time. Even though you can say there was a certain institution then it was not anything we see today or even after 300 or 400AD when the church got ambitious for political power forming a church power structure with all the fancy robes and stuff and the titles of rank and office. This was the down fall of the church that separates  the RCC from what was referred to as Catholic in  110AD. Before that they were just Christians and even that was a while after the church was call anything but believers in Christ just the same as the church today consists of those who believe in Christ. No Catholic or Protestant. The true definition of your word Catholic belongs to all of us who claim Christ as savior. It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it. So yes the church is two thousand years old but the RCC we see that flaunts its authority  was not until after 325 AD

All I see in the video's is that apparently the Catholic Church is struggling with the same disintegration as the Protestant Church.

As I tried to explain in my post, all you see in the video is a very distorted and one-sided view.

It does no really matter about views but truth matters. As AVZ said its not just Catholics  who faith is failing. As long as you have your distorted view of who the church is, it will be to you like you have said. What really is wrong is with all Christianity in this affluent free world society that has become  worldly.   What you don't want to hear or see is that the RCC is the leader of the pack.  They started their fall way back when.

[epiphanius]

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up?

McL,

As we all know, at the time of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants tended to regard each other as enemies of God, with whom there could be no compromise nor rapprochement.  This led both sides to have the attitude of looking at the other as a perfect example of how not to be.  Where the two existed side by side (usually this was not the case, as the civil authorities would recognize only one religion), the leaders of each would be diligent in warning their flocks to stay away from "them."  This is what is meant by a "post reformation fortress!"

In some cases, Catholics and Protestants still tend to regard each other in the same way.

It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it?

It was never the official teaching of the Catholic Church that only the clergy were full members of the Church.  However, some historical facts need to be realized and accepted:  Catholics need to realize that this was indeed the attitude--borrowed entirely from the secular social order--that prevailed in medieval and post-medieval Catholicism, while Protestants need to realize that the Catholic Church had been slowly but steadily moving away from this kind of thinking since ~1870, and then made a major step with Vatican II in the 1960s.  Vatican II had a lot to say about the Christian faithful being the People of God, and made it very clear that this people includes *all* the faithful--all of whom contribute in some way to making up the Body of Christ.

[HRoberson]

"Where the bishop is, there is the church."

[epiphanius]

"Where the bishop is, there is the church."

This is an ancient saying, which in its original sense by no means implies that the bishop "constitutes" the church apart from the laity--both are needed.

[HRoberson]

"Where the bishop is, there is the church."

This is an ancient saying, which in its original sense by no means implies that the bishop "constitutes" the church apart from the laity--both are needed.

What it originally meant may not have any bearing on what it means today.

[To Know is to Serve]

Vatican II had a lot to say about the Christian faithful being the People of God, and made it very clear that this people includes *all* the faithful--all of whom contribute in some way to making up the Body of Christ.

That is not the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

[mclees8]

Some Catholics (or rather those that claim to be Catholics) seem to think the Catholic Church is only 500 years old and not 2,000 years old. They are stuck in a post Reformation fortress Church.

Who are those who are stuck in this post reformation fortress? Is this something you dreamed up?

McL,

As we all know, at the time of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants tended to regard each other as enemies of God, with whom there could be no compromise nor rapprochement.  This led both sides to have the attitude of looking at the other as a perfect example of how not to be.  Where the two existed side by side (usually this was not the case, as the civil authorities would recognize only one religion), the leaders of each would be diligent in warning their flocks to stay away from "them."  This is what is meant by a "post reformation fortress!"

In some cases, Catholics and Protestants still tend to regard each other in the same way.

It was the religious political Vatican bunch that claimed the hierarchy was the church and the people were subject to them for salvation. They were not the church but the people of the land who were taught that salvation was of the church only and the popes were it. This is historically true isn't it?

It was never the official teaching of the Catholic Church that only the clergy were full members of the Church.  However, some historical facts need to be realized and accepted:  Catholics need to realize that this was indeed the attitude--borrowed entirely from the secular social order--that prevailed in medieval and post-medieval Catholicism, while Protestants need to realize that the Catholic Church had been slowly but steadily moving away from this kind of thinking since ~1870, and then made a major step with Vatican II in the 1960s.  Vatican II had a lot to say about the Christian faithful being the People of God, and made it very clear that this people includes *all* the faithful--all of whom contribute in some way to making up the Body of Christ.

of course it would not be the official teaching. it would be the assumed thinking of the popes and bishops. The reason I am so sure of this is where was the personal appeal to the people to come to Christ as apposed to  adherence  to an authoritarian order. This could not have place where the order was religious politically based. I don't know what you think was accomplished at Vatican II. Its not like they just realized they were not acting like the church Jesus founded. If they truly got a revelation of Christ and repented they would take off their robes and burn them and leave the Vatican post haste.  I don't understand what you mean when you say they borrowed from secular society in the midlevel times. During that time and even now they were not burdened for the lost that we need to know Christ in our personal relationship. They thought salvation was adherence the religious political order, in which they themselves had no idea of what real faith in Christ entailed, but were of the world then and now in every sense of the word.  I believe this acceptance of all Christians was not true revelation but more ecumenical. Even now on this very forum we have this attitude that only Catholics have the fullness. Choke choke!!!

[mclees8]

Vatican II had a lot to say about the Christian faithful being the People of God, and made it very clear that this people includes *all* the faithful--all of whom contribute in some way to making up the Body of Christ.

That is not the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

What is the dogmatic teaching then?  What are you saying? Clarify please

[HRoberson]

Vatican II had a lot to say about the Christian faithful being the People of God, and made it very clear that this people includes *all* the faithful--all of whom contribute in some way to making up the Body of Christ.

That is not the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

What is the dogmatic teaching then?  What are you saying? Clarify please

VC II was not a dogmatic council and it's pronouncements range from optional for the faithful all the way to heresy and damnable.

At least according to this view.

Come on folks, this isn't difficult.

[epiphanius]

It was never the official teaching of the Catholic Church that only the clergy were full members of the Church. 

of course it would not be the official teaching. it would be the assumed thinking of the popes and bishops.

Yes, but it should also be realized that the entire social order was structured this way, so it wasn't *only* the popes and bishops.

The reason I am so sure of this is--where was the personal appeal to the people to come to Christ, as opposed to  adherence  to an authoritarian order?

The personal appeal to the people to come to Christ may have been difficult under such circumstances (as it is today, for different reasons), but it was hardly absent.  In the period known as the "Counter-Reformation," there were actually many Catholic priests throughout Europe preaching just that--several of whom were later named "saints."  Some names that come to mind are St. Francis de Sales, St. Paul of the Cross, St. Philip Neri, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Leonard of Port Maurice--but there were many more.

This could not have place where the order was religious politically based.

The religious order certainly did not cease to be politically based with the advent of the Reformation!  Europe became divided into Catholic states and Protestant states, with much intolerance and persecution on both sides.

I don't know what you think was accomplished at Vatican II. Its not like they just realized they were not acting like the church Jesus founded. If they truly got a revelation of Christ and repented they would take off their robes and burn them and leave the Vatican post haste.

For a long time the rhetoric on both sides has gone something like, "do you see what they're doing that's evil? it only serves to prove that everything they do is evil."  When we set aside that kind of rhetoric and take a hard look at reality, we may see something different.  Here is an article about the experience of some of the Protestant "observers" at Vatican II: http://www.tomryancsp.org/news_ProtestantObservers.htm

Even now on this very forum we have this attitude that only Catholics have the fullness. Choke choke!!!

And we also have Protestants who think that no one could possibly come to know Christ and not immediately reject the Catholic Church.  In contrast, the article linked above contains some observations, like this one from Rev. William Baker of the Disciples of Christ, whose experience led him to "...the conviction that all the vast differences which separate Roman and non-Roman Christians are not to be compared with the unity which binds us together in the love of Jesus Christ, who is Lord of us all."

[mclees8]

It was never the official teaching of the Catholic Church that only the clergy were full members of the Church. 

of course it would not be the official teaching. it would be the assumed thinking of the popes and bishops.

Yes, but it should also be realized that the entire social order was structured this way, so it wasn't *only* the popes and bishops.

The reason I am so sure of this is--where was the personal appeal to the people to come to Christ, as opposed to  adherence  to an authoritarian order?

The personal appeal to the people to come to Christ may have been difficult under such circumstances (as it is today, for different reasons), but it was hardly absent.  In the period known as the "Counter-Reformation," there were actually many Catholic priests throughout Europe preaching just that--several of whom were later named "saints."  Some names that come to mind are St. Francis de Sales, St. Paul of the Cross, St. Philip Neri, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Leonard of Port Maurice--but there were many more.

This could not have place where the order was religious politically based.

The religious order certainly did not cease to be politically based with the advent of the Reformation!  Europe became divided into Catholic states and Protestant states, with much intolerance and persecution on both sides.

I don't know what you think was accomplished at Vatican II. Its not like they just realized they were not acting like the church Jesus founded. If they truly got a revelation of Christ and repented they would take off their robes and burn them and leave the Vatican post haste.

For a long time the rhetoric on both sides has gone something like, "do you see what they're doing that's evil? it only serves to prove that everything they do is evil."  When we set aside that kind of rhetoric and take a hard look at reality, we may see something different.  Here is an article about the experience of some of the Protestant "observers" at Vatican II: http://www.tomryancsp.org/news_ProtestantObservers.htm

Even now on this very forum we have this attitude that only Catholics have the fullness. Choke choke!!!

And we also have Protestants who think that no one could possibly come to know Christ and not immediately reject the Catholic Church.  In contrast, the article linked above contains some observations, like this one from Rev. William Baker of the Disciples of Christ, whose experience led him to "...the conviction that all the vast differences which separate Roman and non-Roman Christians are not to be compared with the unity which binds us together in the love of Jesus Christ, who is Lord of us all."

So what does the structure of the social order have to do with faith salvation and the gospel of Christ. These popes and bishops were not even saved or led of the spirit. They lost it and turned down the wrong street. To think as the world is to be in bed with it. We are not a political religious order that is ruling the people who are also not saved or led of the spirit.  The church was about which is to bring people to Christ and have their sins forgiven and to turn our hearts towards heaven and not of the world. Please someone call 911. the church is in grave danger od worldly blindness.

I will address your other points briefly. Im tired right now but be back soon

[epiphanius]

So what does the structure of the social order have to do with faith salvation and the gospel of Christ?

Only that all of these are part of God's plan for His people.  We are not saved in a vacuum, but in the context of human society.

These popes and bishops were not even saved or led of the spirit. They lost it and turned down the wrong street. To think as the world is to be in bed with it.

The scribes and the Pharisees had also lost it and turned down the wrong street, and yet Our Lord never said that they had thereby forfeited their God-given authority.  In Mt. 23:1-3, we read:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat.  All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do.

I would hasten to add here that everything recorded in the Scripture--and especially the Gospels--was given for our instruction.  If Jesus had only meant this for the few remaining months before He established the Church and did away with all these institutions, there would have been no reason for Matthew to record it.

Furthermore, the office of bishop (episkopos or overseer) is certainly of biblical origin, and can be found in every ancient church without exception.

[AVZ]

These popes and bishops were not even saved or led of the spirit.

Mclees,

I don't think that this is a right thing to say.
You can argue that actions are not led by the Holy Spirit, or seem not to be led. But saying that someone therefore is not saved is itself also not an argument that is given to you by the Holy Spirit.
I have no doubt that many pious men do things from misconception with right intentions.

[AVZ]

The scribes and the Pharisees had also lost it and turned down the wrong street, and yet Our Lord never said that they had thereby forfeited their God-given authority.  In Mt. 23:1-3, we read:
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat.  All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do.

Epiphanius,

There is a clear distinction between men that "say the right things, and do the wrong" and men that "say the wrong things, and do the wrong".
If given authority is the superseding argument,  should we therefore then do the wrong things?

It is one thing to submit yourself to correct teaching by a man who does not practice it, but it is something else to submit yourself to incorrect teaching by a man who practices it.
In both cases submissiveness follows the teaching, not the teacher.

[mclees8]

These popes and bishops were not even saved or led of the spirit.

Mclees,

I don't think that this is a right thing to say.
You can argue that actions are not led by the Holy Spirit, or seem not to be led. But saying that someone therefore is not saved is itself also not an argument that is given to you by the Holy Spirit.
I have no doubt that many pious men do things from misconception with right intentions.

We agree a lot AVZ and yes my statement may lean on personal opinion but the Bishops of Rome that became drunk on ambition being flattered of the Emperor had lost all sight of Christ. They became robbers and thieves of Christ seeking his glory for themselves. I cannot retract my statement.

[epiphanius]

The scribes and the Pharisees had also lost it and turned down the wrong street, and yet Our Lord never said that they had thereby forfeited their God-given authority.  In Mt. 23:1-3, we read:
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat.  All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do."

There is a clear distinction between men that "say the right things, and do the wrong" and men that "say the wrong things, and do the wrong".
If given authority is the superseding argument,  should we therefore then do the wrong things?

AV,

Are you saying, then, that if a Catholic bishop behaves in a sinful and ungodly way, that this behavior is the direct and unavoidable result of Catholic teaching?

[AVZ]

The scribes and the Pharisees had also lost it and turned down the wrong street, and yet Our Lord never said that they had thereby forfeited their God-given authority.  In Mt. 23:1-3, we read:
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat.  All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do."

There is a clear distinction between men that "say the right things, and do the wrong" and men that "say the wrong things, and do the wrong".
If given authority is the superseding argument,  should we therefore then do the wrong things?

AV,

Are you saying, then, that if a Catholic bishop behaves in a sinful and ungodly way, that this behavior is the direct and unavoidable result of Catholic teaching?

Absolutely not.
I have no reason to believe that the in-principle doctrines of the Catholic Church are not the product of genuine God seeking people.
And I would reject any claim that the intent of Catholic doctrine leads to sinful or ungodly behavior.

That said however, there are practices and doctrines that I fiercely disagree with.
I also think it was an huge mistake of the Catholic Church to declare herself infallible.

So no, I do not believe that Catholic teaching leads to sinful and ungodly behavior. At least not intentionally, but that is subjective interpretation.

[epiphanius]

AV,

Thanks for clearing that up.