>

The argument probably goes something like this:
“Peter - ostensibly the first Pope, despite that not being a title in the Bible - was given the keys, or the ability to bind and loose (meaning regulate), what he (and all that follow in that office) chooses. That means whatever the Pope says is (religiously) the rule (but only in certain specific circumstances), so he can shape it as he sees fit (within ‘reason’).
So, the Pope creates the catholic (small ‘c’ meaning universal) structure, and that gives us what we see today. Because in Scripture, Peter was given this power (which is true in the Bible), it follows that the archdiocese is a religious authority, regardless of it being in the text.’
That seems to be essentially the same answer to the following quip:
Jesus teaches you what to do to be a good person. It wasn’t until the Council of Nicea did man come back with what and how to believe to be a good Christian.
It’s Orwellian. >

Only until no one knows what that means. >

this just blows me away.  i mean its 20-friggen-23 and people want to still ban WORDS.  words are the audible version assigned by your brain of the concept of what they mean.
They know they cant ban an idea or concept so banning words is the next closest thing.  That is the most controlling shit i can imagine when you think about it.  
these people arent much to show for 4.5 billion years of evolution >


These people arent much to show for 4.5 [redacted by order of the Governor] years of [redacted by order of the Governor]

The what? You're not making much sense here >

dude.. ok.. thats funny :D >

They just really don't want kids reading books. >

They might get ideas that way. >

They never got over the technopanic caused by the Gutenberg press. >

"Wait.  We can't let the peasantry know what the Bible REALLY says." >

Catholic conservatism never really changed its stripes. >

Want to shut a priest up?  Ask him where in the Bible does it define the archdiocese as religious authority?