“I’ll give it a try if you clarify.”
In post #12 I was referring to what appears to me to be self-contradictory in the Catholic objections to the Reformation.
One of the most consistent arguments I’ve heard over the years is that Apostolic succession is an evidence of the Catholic Church being the one-and-only true Church. I don’t see how anyone can hold the view of Apostolic succession and simultaneously believe a Pope could be a heretic or apostate. And this leads me to believe I’ve had some fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic position on this matter.
There have also been times in Catholic history where there has been no pope or dispute over who is pope.
There was one time where three different men at the same time claimed to be pope.
That is not apostolic succession, much less unbroken.
Because of that, it cannot be used as evidence or *proof* of the Catholic church being the one true church.
Not to mention that the EO make the same claim, that they are the original church founded by Jesus and that Rome is in schism.
There is much confusion within Catholicism. Even Catholics on this forum cannot agree over what is doctrine, what is dogma, how much latitude the laity have to obligation to believe what the church teaches, etc.
The Bible says (if you can believe it) that a '...double minded man is unstable in all his ways.'