If Christianity is true, then Catholics are right

Roman Catholicism, as it is presented today, is remarkably different from what Jesus taught and from the early church.How is it 'remarkably different,' and how does this prove that the Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity?Catholicism is not the only Christian religion whose members are compelled to adhere to specific doctrines.I concede this point, because it doesn't make me wrong. Catholicism's members do not all hold the same doctrines.I concede this point to for the same reason; however, this doesn't prove that that Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity. Just because people don't follow the rules doesn't mean the rules are wrong.Why does Jesus rebuke Peter just a few verses later, calling him Satan and a hindrance? Why does Paul not distinguish between Peter and James and John in Gal 2? And why does Paul rebuke him?Papal infallibility only applies under particular circumstances, and doesn't change the fact that Peter, like other popes since him, were sinners like everyone else. Also, this doesn't support your claim that the "Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity."In contrast to the Magisterium structure you want to prop up, Jesus says in Matthew 23:8-10, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."Jesus was using hyperbole to make a statement. Surely you don't think Jesus is forbidding sons from calling their father, 'father'? Jesus was admonishing the Pharisees' pride because they were acting as the ultimate authority, instead of seeing God as the ultimate authority.So, James, not Peter, was the bishop of Jerusalem.I never said that Peter was bishop of Jerusalem. How does this prove that Catholicism is a distortion of Christianity?And if there was any church with preeminence, it was Jerusalem. Why was the first pope not the head of the preeminent church? Why was it James, not Peter delivering the ruling in the first counsel?The underlines premise is a baseless assumption, so I'll ignore the arguments following that are based on it.Is Matthew 28:19-20 a command?Obviously. What's your point?Does John 20:23 only apply to those present when it was said? That is, did Thomas not receive the power to forgive sins?It doesn't matter; how would either scenario prove that Catholicism is a distortion of Christianity? Why are you posing irrelevant questions?In Luke 10:16, was Judas among those given "legislative power"?See my previous reply.If 1 Corinthians 3:1-10 is about hierarchy, why does verse 10 end with a warning to be careful how you build? And why is it followed by verses about how that work (of building the church) can be built up?The first verses are explaining why it doesn't matter who the people think is the 'best' apostle, because it ignores the fact that the apostles are merely doing God's work, not their own. The 10th verse is talking about building your faith on a strong foundation as opposed to blind faith. Can the church hierarchy fail?Members of the Church can falter in their faith (even Peter did when he denied Jesus!) but that doesn't mean the Church's dogma is wrong. There have been scandalous popes and bishops, but Catholic dogma has always stayed intact regardless.It is called noble in Acts 17, when the laity held an Apostle to the standard of Scripture rather than taking him at his word. Does this fly in the Roman Catholic church?What's your point? Stop asking me seemingly random questions and start making arguments please!!I wonder why Cyprian didn't mention the popeBecause the word didn't exist yet. If I write a letter to my friend but don't mention my wife, does that mean my wife doesn't exist? No. Also, what's your point? St. Macrina the Younger (330 - 379) wrote:No, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following quote:We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenetWhat is this supposed to prove? In the same writing, St. Gregory says: "As for ourselves, we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church"St. Basil (329-379) wrote to a widow:You took the quote out of context. Here it is in more context:"Your dream, I think, reveals more perfectly the necessity of making provision for spiritual contemplation, and cultivating that mental vision by which God is wont to be seen. Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right."Basil is not saying that "Christians don't need help interpreting the Holy Scriptures" as my opponent seems to be implying. Rather, he is telling the widow she doesn't need help to "comprehend [her] duty." How my opponent jumps from this to the conclusion that Basil believe in Sola Scriptura I have no idea.Basil seems to be [...] asserting not just the material, but the formal sufficiency of the Bible.Absolutely not. Here is Basil again:“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force” (The Holy Spirit [375 AD])Con has failed to convincingly refute any of my arguments; furthermore, he hasn't explained or supported his argument that the "Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity." He also hasn't explained how Catholicism doesn't trace back to Jesus better than any other religion.Back to you, Con.