Let's not try to sugarcoat that

Your*

My argument is that you can't spit on the Church and brag about how apostolic you are

Even if the Catholic Church went entirely against the Bible it would still be the one true Church because it had an unbroken line of apostolic succession?

My argument is that you can't dismiss the authorities of the Church as silly outdated things that need "reformation" and then expect people to take you seroulsy

I'm not spitting on anything

Do you know how the collection of books you know as the "bible" came to be?

Yes of course.

It was

Compiled

I know

And there were disagreements about those compilations

But still

If the Catholic Church went against scripture today

Would you consider it the one true Church?

Who says what is against scripture?

If you were to cheat on your wife that would not be against scripture? You'd have to go to the pope and ask him for his infallible opinion on the matter?

It is against scripture to say that the Church can go against Scripture

The Gates of Hell will not prevail

You seem to imply that it is so easy to know what is and isn't against scripture, that there is no need for an infallible Church

However, you got a million denominations, each of them with a different opinion on what goes and does not go against Scripture

How did people read and understand the Bible and compile it and decide? So you're saying the reason Catholicism is the one true Church is because the line of people who compiled it and interpretated it were and are infallible?

Protestant denominations that disagree with mainstream Theological interpretations aren't in Disagreement about what's right, they're purposefully sinful

Catholicism is the Church because it has been since it was created by Christ

Sounds like circular reasoning to never be wrong about anything.

And the Bible did not exist as such for a few centuries

The basis of Christianity is not the Bible

It is Christ. And form Christ comes the Church

Apostolic Christianity exists since day 1, unlike protestant denominations that are traced to some random American, vow-breaking monk, or divorced king

Haha

Yeah but you don't understand by agreeing on scriptural interpretation at a counsel is not infallible

Otherwise people wouldn't disagree

The authority of an acumenical council is infallible

People disagree because people break away

Just because you had the most people on your side and could physically remove them by pain of torture or death definitely sounds like infallible apostolic succession to me. Good one.

Or you physically remove them and call them heretics.

Through democracy

It's not about majority

Ok

It has never been about majorities, which is why there is a hierarchy with a pope at the end

So how did a counsel agree