Found this passage on the net from a neutral site, was mulling over it for a while.
Is it historically correct?
Any answer to their claims? (if any are needed?)
Roman Catholicism traces its history to the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. St. Peter is considered the first pope, and every pope since him is regarded as his spiritual successor. This gives the leader of the church spiritual authority and provides a means for resolving disputes that could divide the church. Through trials like persecution, heresy, and the Reformation, the notion that the church leadership represents the continuation of an unbroken line from the apostles and their teachings (“apostolic succession”) has contributed to the survival of Christianity.
However, the idea of the “pope” did not exist from the beginning of the church. It was not until several centuries after Christ that the church began to develop into the “Roman Catholic Church” as we think of it today, with its particular doctrines, practices, and hierarchical system of authority. Thus Catholics and non-Catholics alike are able to claim they are most faithful to the message of the apostles and the early church. From the Catholic perspective, the early church is faithfully continued in the developments of later centuries, while non-Catholics tend to regard the church as having corrupted the original message of Christianity.
Very appreciative of any direction towards similar threads or tracts on catholic.com about the subject, i cant seem to find any.
Or just your take on it.