Uncommon Problem with RCC

[UbiCaritas15]

Do not however let me tell a half truth by leaving out that people and thereby institutions can make mistakes. The king that the ten tribes left didn’t handle his job appropriately. People can fall victim to pride. But abandoning liturgical worship centered on the covenant (Eucharist) isn’t fixing the problem. It rather allows far greater room for error.

Liturgical worship is the only restoration. Abraham, Moses, Jericho, Judea and Jesus. The only answer is liturgy.

 

[Kliska]

You seem to have a comprehension issue.

Perhaps you are right and I’m ignorant, and illiterate, and cannot comprehend language. That makes me easily dismissed and a waste of time to talk to.

Your personal theology may be coloring your understanding of the Catholic faith.

Quite the contrary, I’ve read several instances on the forum where it is quite clear; RC’s are supposed to interpret scripture inline with the RCC. What is there to hide? This is, by definition, a true statement.

Catholics are free to interpret Scripture, but it must be in line with Church teaching.

And if they read scripture and see that it isn’t inline with church teaching? What are they taught then? Are you allowed to interpret scripture and believe that interpretation if it goes against the RCC? No.

And you yourself ascribe to this belief, you just don’t admit it. And the standard for judging if something is appropriate is if it is in alignment with your personal theology. (or is someone free to interpret the Scripture to believe that Jesus is not God? And why not?)

The Holy Spirit is quite a capable instructor. The Bereans checked oral teaching against written teaching to see if what people were telling them was truth. I do the same.

And you claim to show error. That’s an interesting statement. Are you claiming infallibility? Or are you possibly wrong? If you are possibly wrong, then how would you prove someone wrong?

It’s not my job to prove someone wrong, nor am I infallible. Again, the catch 22, this is your house, your rules, and I respect that. I have no wish to go into a formal argumentation as to why I believe the RCC’s teaching on a certain point is in error. That’s rude, as well as being against the rules of this forum.

To take Paul only for who he was writing in the letter is to throw out the idea of inspired scripture that applies to us. Yes, there was one context to the congregation he is addressing, but this denies God’s ability to write one continuous story in the bible.

No. The context allows proper interpretation and application. It does indeed apply to us, just not in the way it is being proposed. How do I know that? The context.

From the beginning of the bible God is telling the story of his marriage to the assembly. Whether it is the Israelites who abandon the king he chose or the detractors who have abandoned the Church Christ founded, the story is the same.

Division is not of God. “For I hate divorce. says The Lord” Mal 2:16

We are in agreement on that.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Agreements are good places to be.

We aren’t one. If we were we would have “one faith” and “one bread” and be “one as we are one”, which is perfect harmony of wills. Clearly this is not the case. The only answer, as Paul states, is to be one body, which can only be accomplished through Eucharist (necessitating liturgical worship) “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” 1 Cor 10:17

On an individual and communal level we have all done wrong. Coming to unity and forgetting transgressions is more important than finger pointing. But this can only be done in the Church.

 

[Kliska]

Agreements are good places to be.

Agreed That is why in the course of discussion with others it is always important to note who agrees with creeds, and "mere Christianity’ such as the Apostles’ Creed and who does not.

We aren’t one. If we were we would have “one faith” and “one bread” and be “one as we are one”, which is perfect harmony of wills. Clearly this is not the case. The only answer, as Paul states, is to be one body, which can only be accomplished through Eucharist (necessitating liturgical worship) “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” 1 Cor 10:17

Of course most Protestants disagree, how we are one is by actually becoming a member of the body of Christ and that is by grace through faith in Him, the Son of God. The participation in that body may differ, as the members of the body differ. We believe in one church as well, one body, one faith, we just disagree on who comprises that body. I do believe in the church invisible.

I think the OP of this thread has a problem with the abuses of the “visible church” and that is where the hesitation comes in… with good reason from my perspective. When you have a visible church, and organizational, institutional church that is rife with problems, that does call its claims into question, or at least it does for me. Now, having said that, if someone believes that Pope Francis is a good and wise Christian leader and they want to be a part of that, I can understand, but to do that it is mandated on the believer to accept all that the institutional church teaches, and has taught.

I understand the limits to that, but I believe as Jesus’ actions, Paul’s actions, Peter’s actions, etc… were important, so are the actions of those claiming to represent Him and the Apostolic teachings. When those actions deviate so much, that’s usually a sign of a serious problem.

On an individual and communal level we have all done wrong. Coming to unity and forgetting transgressions is more important than finger pointing. But this can only be done in the Church.

I agree again, just not in the same manner.

Grace and Peace to you.

 

[GEddie]

To take Paul only for who he was writing in the letter is to throw out the idea of inspired scripture that applies to us. Yes, there was one context to the congregation he is addressing, but this denies God’s ability to write one continuous story in the bible.

From the beginning of the bible God is telling the story of his marriage to the assembly. Whether it is the Israelites who abandon the king he chose or the detractors who have abandoned the Church Christ founded, the story is the same.

Division is not of God. “For I hate divorce. says The Lord” Mal 2:16

And yet our LORD Himself brought not peace but the sword…

ICXC NIKA

 

[UbiCaritas15]

"I understand the limits to that, but I believe as Jesus’ actions, Paul’s actions, Peter’s actions, etc… were important, so are the actions of those claiming to represent Him and the Apostolic teachings. When those actions deviate so much, that’s usually a sign of a serious problem.

As you see, I’m not very good at following direction, so the help of Rome is necessary for me. (Silly quoting format). Serious problems don’t absolve the Protestant divorce from the Church. That there were, are and will be Church problems is dealt with in Matthew’s weeds and wheat parable. The enemy enjoys attacking the Bride of Christ.

Does it say in the bible that we become one body through faith in him? Just curious. Because it does say we become one body through the Eucharist.

Is this a sola scriptura conversation? It would be helpful to know

 

[UbiCaritas15]

And yet our LORD Himself brought not peace but the sword…

ICXC NIKA

Our Lord doesn’t bring a sword in the way of division or evil. He is all good and all love. He brings the sword of his mouth which is the Word. It is our own fault we choose the way of division over peaceful submission to his merciful will. We bring famine. We bring murder. We do this by not taking up our cross, in peace as he did.

 

[ezeekl]

Yes, it’s amazing how quickly we forget to love our neighbors… even our enemies, to do good to them, to pray for them.

I’ll not fruitlessly argue with someone who won’t read the context of the scriptures they quote. Besides, I’ve been told here that RC’s aren’t allowed to interpret scripture anyway, but go by what other men have deemed appropriate interpretation, so even if I showed error, no error would be recognized. It’s kind of a catch 22, and only results in the protestant getting in trouble on the forums.

Whoa there, not so fast, fella! First of all you would have to show me where your interpretation is one that the early church believed in and not some invention later on. The early church was quite proactive in defense of orthodox teaching. The early church writers were adamant in their defense of Apostolic Succession. In fact, the role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, would write, “[W]here in practice was apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

He goes on to state: "…on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

That aplies to all those who have no apostolic line of succession. And that applies to all non /Orthodox Christian denominations. To put it rather bluntly, Bible interpretations are like belly buttons. Everybody has one. So it is not a matter of how you interpret the Bible. But rather how your interpretation compares to what the church has received from the Apostles and has taught for 2,000 years. In a few years we will all celebrate the 500 year anniversary of sola scriptura. That’s correct it is 500 not 2000 years old. Helloooooo, does that tell you anything???

 

[Kliska]

As you see, I’m not very good at following direction, so the help of Rome is necessary for me. (Silly quoting format). Serious problems don’t absolve the Protestant divorce from the Church.

But, you see, from our perspective we never divorced the One Church. We separated from a man-made institutional organization whose leaders were not upholding Christ or His teachings. True believers are always a part of the church. Again, I believe in the invisible church made up of all believers; we are the body of Christ.

That there were, are and will be Church problems is dealt with in Matthew’s weeds and wheat parable. The enemy enjoys attacking the Bride of Christ.

Again, (and for example) the claims of the RCC are that there is a position and a title of “Vicar of Christ.” What the RCC would have Christians believe is that even when these “Vicars of Christ” were killing, fornicating, buying and selling salvation, that they are Vicars of Christ even then. For many of us that is a ludicrous proposition. Jesus didn’t just bring His word and teach it, He lived a life of actions being meaningful. Paul didn’t allow Peter to act against truth, but withstood him to his face and corrected him on a matter of church doctrine.

Does it say in the bible that we become one body through faith in him? Just curious. Because it does say we become one body through the Eucharist.

Actually my beliefs are exactly opposite. He taught just that in scripture; faith in Him is how we become one, not through the literal eating and drinking of flesh and blood. (I know that I won’t be arguing on this, but just trying to answer your question; So, yes, it does say in the bible that we become one body through faith in Him.)

My perspective that I glean from scripture it that it is by faith in Him that we become part of His church, we don’t place our faith in the church to become a part of Him, there is a subtle difference. He is preeminent; Truth is a literal Person and we have to come to Truth to be a part of it, and I see in scripture it is by faith in Him that it happens. Literally by coming to know He is who He says He is, by trusting what He has done, by knowing Christ and Him crucified and trusting all of that, His work, His faith, His life, death, resurrection, His blood to save us and cleanse us.

Is this a sola scriptura conversation? It would be helpful to know

I don’t think it can be, as anyone that is a member of the RCC puts tradition alongside scripture. As with other things, it is probably best if we didn’t go down the path of argumentation, but I do appreciate you sharing your viewpoint, truly. It does clarify things for me.

The OP’s question is outside of the realm of Sola Scriptura, in that it is referring to historical happenings. I’m trying to shed some light on what would be the scriptural response to those happenings and their implications from my perspective.

Grace and peace.

 

[Kliska]

Whoa there, not so fast, fella!

Daughter of Eve here, not a Son of Adam.

First of all you would have to show me where your interpretation is one that the early church believed in and not some invention later on. The early church was quite proactive in defense of orthodox teaching. The early church writers were adamant in their defense of Apostolic Succession. In fact, the role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, would write, “[W]here in practice was apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

He goes on to state: "…on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

That aplies to all those who have no apostolic line of succession. And that applies to all non /Orthodox Christian denominations. To put it rather bluntly, Bible interpretations are like belly buttons. Everybody has one. So it is not a matter of how you interpret the Bible. But rather how your interpretation compares to what the church has received from the Apostles and has taught for 2,000 years. In a few years we will all celebrate the 500 year anniversary of sola scriptura. That’s correct it is 500 not 2000 years old. Helloooooo, does that tell you anything???

Just because you call a dog a cat doesn’t make it a cat. Reading through all of this my response is, of course you are going to respond that way, that is the perspective of those you personally consider to be designated by God to tell you those things.

Here’s the problem from a protestant perspective with what you wrote; we already know that false teachings and teachers were invading the churches at the time of the Apostles. How? Because it is recorded in scripture. Galatians, for example, was written so that the church would not fall into legalism. There were those, at that time, amongst the Galatians preaching falsely and the Galatians were believing it. Paul wrote to them and we have that letter, so we can check teachings against it, you can’t do that with verbal teaching. I have no problem with tradition that does not conflict with the word of God.

Even RC theologians will point out that the early church teachers were not infallible, they made mistakes. What you are putting forth is that there is no way for believers to check the teachings of various individuals without resorting to circular logic. That is not so. It wasn’t true for the Bereans, and it’s not true for us. We are told to personally check for the truth when someone tries to tell us something, we are to test the spirits, personally. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Thanks to the writers of the OT and NT, inspired by the Spirit, we don’t have to rely on a game of telephone to know is something conflicts with the teaching of the Apostles. I propose that people teach by action as well as by word; Paul certainly thought so, or else he would not have opposed Peter to his face when Peter’s actions went against the truth. I say it is acceptable to look at the actions of others and institutions to see if they are inline with the word of God or not. The OP is struggling with that.

 

[steve_b]

A word and its meaning are not context. You miss the point that Paul is making, in effect, not seeing the forest for the trees, nor seeing how it is meant within the letter. Again, you have no disagreement with me on the literal analytical meaning of the word, but rather the application in the context of what Paul is preaching, and to whom he is preaching.

Taking Gal 5:19-21 in bites. (emphasis mine)

• 19 “Now the works of the flesh are plain” :
• plain = everyone understands. No confusion here. People who want to play games with meanings and context with something plain, are probably the ones who Paul is warning over and over again.
• " immorality, impurity, licentiousness, ( the meaning is clear )
• 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) , ( the meaning is clear)
• 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (the meaning is clear )

Paul opens this up with the understanding that what he is teaching them, is as plain and clear to them, as the nose on their face. [Gal 5:19]

Which means when Paul uses the same word [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) in Rom 16:17, as he does in Gal 5:20, everybody knows what [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) means

Given what Paul says here, “I warn you as I’ve warned you before” (Gal 5:21), tells us this isn’t the first time Paul has warned them about these sins. Unless they change, and quickly, alot of them are going to hell for these sins in particular, that he is mentioning here. And that judgement is coming from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) . So it’s Jesus telling us in advance, through the HS, through Paul, how He will judge those sins, and in particular the sin of dissent from His Church, the particular sin in the spotlight here [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm)

Paul isn’t asking them if they understand what he’s saying, he already said what he’s telling them is clear. So, for those who for example, are in the sin of dissension / schism / division [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) from the Church, they have to come back in full communion with the Catholic Church or they won’t inherit the kingdom of God when they die.
K:

To you it obviously applies to anyone teaching anything against the Roman Catholic faith. That’s not the meaning. But as you say, there is no point in arguing about it.

For clarification, The name of the Church Our Lord established on Peter and the apostles is the Catholic Church. It’s been that way from the beginning. [http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11327257&postcount=15 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11327257&postcount=15)

The Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome, Peter’s see. St Peter’s basilica in Rome is built over the tomb of Peter. Pope Francis 266th successor to Peter in Rome, presides over the Church world wide.

btw, FYI, the book of Romans was written to the Church of Rome.

Roman / Latin in the Catholic Church, is a rite. It happens to be ~98% of the total of the Catholic Church population worldwide with the other Eastern rites being ~2%. All rites are 100% Catholic, and are the Catholic Church, because they are in complete union with the pope, the successor to Peter. If they aren’t in complete union with the pope they aren’t Catholic, and it goes without saying they aren’t the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

And yet our LORD Himself brought not peace but the sword…

ICXC NIKA

not everyone wants Him on His terms.

John 17:20-23

 

[Kliska]

Taking Gal 5:19-21 in bites. (emphasis mine)

• 19 “Now the works of the flesh are plain” :
• plain = everyone understands. No confusion here. People who want to play games with meanings and context with something plain, are probably the ones who Paul is warning over and over again.
• " immorality, impurity, licentiousness, ( the meaning is clear )
• 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) , ( the meaning is clear)
• 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (the meaning is clear )

Paul opens this up with the understanding that what he is teaching them, is as plain and clear to them, as the nose on their face. [Gal 5:19]

Which means when Paul uses the same word [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) in Rom 16:17, as he does in Gal 5:20, everybody knows what [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) means

Given what Paul says here, “I warn you as I’ve warned you before” (Gal 5:21), tells us this isn’t the first time Paul has warned them about these sins. Unless they change, and quickly, alot of them are going to hell for these sins in particular, that he is mentioning here. And that judgement is coming from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) . So it’s Jesus telling us in advance, through the HS, through Paul, how He will judge those sins, and in particular the sin of dissent from His Church, the particular sin in the spotlight here [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm)

Paul isn’t asking them if they understand what he’s saying, he already said what he’s telling them is clear. So, for those who for example, are in the sin of dissension / schism / division [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) from the Church, they have to come back in full communion with the Catholic Church or they won’t inherit the kingdom of God when they die.

I’m sorry, but this is not the context. We don’t agree on the application of the verses you are citing. It’s not an arguing matter. You see this as Paul instructing them about being loyal to the RCC, I don’t see that meaning at all looking at the context.

For clarification, The name of the Church Our Lord established on Peter and the apostles is the Catholic Church. It’s been that way from the beginning. [http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11327257&postcount=15 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11327257&postcount=15)

The Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome, Peter’s see. St Peter’s basilica in Rome is built over the tomb of Peter. Pope Francis 266th successor to Peter in Rome, presides over the Church world wide.

btw, FYI, the book of Romans was written to the Church of Rome.

Roman / Latin in the Catholic Church, is a rite. It happens to be ~98% of the total of the Catholic Church population worldwide with the other Eastern rites being ~2%. All rites are 100% Catholic, and are the Catholic Church, because they are in complete union with the pope, the successor to Peter. If they aren’t in complete union with the pope they aren’t Catholic, and it goes without saying they aren’t the Catholic Church.

We’ll have to disagree on this as well.

 

[pablope]

Protestants would never want to “get around” those verses. They don’t mean what you propose they mean. For example, here’s some context in Galatians:

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 **But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.**16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Let me ask you…how would you know that your interpretation…that what you interpret is the correct interpretation?

What is your basis?

 

[pablope]

Perhaps you are right and I’m ignorant, and illiterate, and cannot comprehend language. That makes me easily dismissed and a waste of time to talk to.

The Holy Spirit is quite a capable instructor.

What is your basis or standard to determine what is error and what is not?

Can you cite one error in RCC teaching?

No. The context allows proper interpretation and application. It does indeed apply to us, just not in the way it is being proposed. How do I know that? The context.

Again…what is your basis to determine the right context or right application of bible passages?

[/QUOTE]

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry, but this is not the context. We don’t agree on the application of the verses you are citing. It’s not an arguing matter. You see this as Paul instructing them about being loyal to the RCC, I don’t see that meaning at all looking at the context.

How do you know that is not the right context? How will one know or determine the right context?

We’ll have to disagree on this as well.

 

[Kliska]

I will not argue points that are disrespectful on this forum and to the RC faith. I have no wish to do so.

I will explain my view, and I do realize, fully, that it is not the view taught by the RCC. To start, the Holy Spirit is God Himself. He resides with us, and in us, when we become Christian. Christ is the head of the church, so God the Son is the head of the church, and God the Spirit is in us. The Holy Spirit works within us to lead and guide us, as well as to sanctify. We also have Holy Scriptures. When we read we are reading the word of God, with God to guide us. We are told in scriptures that the Bereans checked scripture to be assured what they were being told verbally was true. That’s what I believe is right.

Someone tells me tradition, and I’m going to check with the written word of God to see if it lines up or not. There are teachings in the RCC that I feel contradict scripture as well as actions of the hierarchy, priests, etc… (that’s the topic at hand) that I don’t feel line up with scripture. Again, I’m not here to go into specifics in your own house, and argue disrespectfully.

 

[Kliska]

How do you know that is not the right context? How will one know or determine the right context?

Holy Spirit, study, prayer and…

Why and what is your basis for disagreeing?

scripture.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Someone tells me tradition, and I’m going to check with the written word of God to see if it lines up or not. . . …

There was another thread that addressed this in part.
The bottom line is that if God wanted to actually write something down, He would have done so as Jesus.
But He did not; what He did do was to establish a church.

 

[Brendan_64]

One of the major roadblocks I am running into though is about the Catholic Church’s governing structure and the problems that come from it. Regardless of what you think about papal infallibility, papal authority, or the episcopal form of government, fair Catholics have to admit that a lot of really awful things have come from it. A lot of corruption, a lot of strife, murder, the restriction of liberty, etc. It’s a historical fact that the Catholic Church supported the kings of Europe against the democratization of the West and that the RCC was intricately tied to the opposition of the principle of separating church governance and government in general.

How do you all deal with these problems? Wouldn’t the church be better off with less authority concentrated in one church governing office?

The Church is a Church of sinners. All men are sinners. Evangelical Churches are no better. How many Evangelical ministers are lining their pockets from their positions? Corruption is endemic in mankind, why would you expect it to be different within the Catholic Church. We’re a Church of sinners (from the bottom to the top) trying to move towards salvation. We’re an imperfect, rusty, corrupted, leaky vehicle, but we are the vehicle that Christ left to try to transport men to salvation.Yes we have done some very bad things, but that is because we are a Church made up of human beings corrupted by sin (as are all human beings).