Rodney Stark isn't a Catholic, but his history "The Triumph of Christianity" is phenomenal. Even better sourced: Paul Johnson's "The History of Christianity". (Johnson is a Catholic, but he leaves no rock unturned and has no inhibitions about criticizing the Church). I'd say if neither of those two books convinces you, you'll remain convinced of your current position.
To the extent that this massive question and even greater answer can be summarized, I'd say that the Peterine and Pauline "Jesus Movement" (i.e. the Judaic and largely Hellenic groups) converged in large part as a result not just of the persecutions under Nero and Diocletian, but also because of the brutal Persian persecution of the church. I'd ignore Gibbon's spurious revisionist histories (he was a trenchantly anti-Catholic free mason) as well as Voltaire who wrote history to shape the political future, and reconsider Constantine in lieu of recent findings, at least regarding the sincerity of his conversion, and the importance of the Council of Nicaea in terms of eliminating gnostic elements as well as other heretical elements (e.g. those claiming Christ was not consubstantial with God; those claiming Christ was not fully human and fully God; those maintaining that the God of the Old Testament was a demi-urge and the God of the New Testament the ostensibly 'irrational' but loving supra-God). That Christianity was ever unified with a common orthodoxy (one tree with many limbs and branches), it was in the Roman Church, which cites Peter then James as first pontiffs. If you look at other denominations, they were largely driven by ego and passing corruption of the clergy by aristocrats (Lutheranism) and by political gambits (Anglicanism). There are a number of offshoots that were extremists of one sort or another (e.g. Marcionites who wanted to eliminate all Judaic elements in Christianity; Arians who believed in a unitary God and denied the divinity of Christ; and Anabaptists who were a motley of ascetics and lunatics).
What I would contend is that to the extent that there is legitimacy beyond Rome, to a lesser degree but still a considerable extent, it is to be found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Notwithstanding the theological confusion and corruption of the Nestorians, those Christian holdouts in northern Africa, which are almost all in communion now with Rome, are also legitimate, especially in terms of apostolic succession.
You might think that. I don't want to dox myself by divulging too much, but I know that there are no-bullshit heavy hitters amongst the clergy and lay (i.e. in the Catholic Church in Canada) that are throwing down in ways the media won't cover but are seismic. Just not in Quebec.
Trust me, buddy, I get you and think you've raised some fair points and concerns.
I'd like to highlight one example. The Toronto dioceses never ran a residential school; it has nothing whatsoever to do with them (there is no national Canadian Catholic Church despite ridiculous suggestions to the contrary, discounting ~2000 of the Roman diocesan system). Some activist put hundreds of orange ribbons around the Cathedral downtown--I don't know if it occurs to them that orange is a color long associated with anti-Catholicism and anti-Irish bigotry.
Now, to take down these ribbons, themselves constituting a libel, would give the activist a photo-op and an opportunity for the CBC to seek another unwarranted and innocent pound of flesh. I'm surprised a lay Catholic hasn't taken them down, but understand that it would only serve to engage the professionally offended.
Also note: many of the wealthy dioceses in the West had nothing to do with the residential schools and didn't operate them (e.g. Calgary). It was actually in the 90s when the protestant churches made a deal to pay up then, despite themselves also not bearing much if any 'guilt' in many circumstances. The Catholic churches refused and for good reason. That's part of the reason why post-TRC, there are many in the grievance industry keen to extort money they believe is owing. (Sadly, much of the diocesan funds taken in those regions where residential schools had existed had been earmarked for charitable causes, and instead ended up being claimed by individuals who presented no evidence and were permitted to offer testimony without cross-examination.)
The Catholic Church isn't rrally Christian and never was. Convince me otherwise.
Rodney Stark isn't a Catholic, but his history "The Triumph of Christianity" is phenomenal. Even better sourced: Paul Johnson's "The History of Christianity". (Johnson is a Catholic, but he leaves no rock unturned and has no inhibitions about criticizing the Church). I'd say if neither of those two books convinces you, you'll remain convinced of your current position.
To the extent that this massive question and even greater answer can be summarized, I'd say that the Peterine and Pauline "Jesus Movement" (i.e. the Judaic and largely Hellenic groups) converged in large part as a result not just of the persecutions under Nero and Diocletian, but also because of the brutal Persian persecution of the church. I'd ignore Gibbon's spurious revisionist histories (he was a trenchantly anti-Catholic free mason) as well as Voltaire who wrote history to shape the political future, and reconsider Constantine in lieu of recent findings, at least regarding the sincerity of his conversion, and the importance of the Council of Nicaea in terms of eliminating gnostic elements as well as other heretical elements (e.g. those claiming Christ was not consubstantial with God; those claiming Christ was not fully human and fully God; those maintaining that the God of the Old Testament was a demi-urge and the God of the New Testament the ostensibly 'irrational' but loving supra-God). That Christianity was ever unified with a common orthodoxy (one tree with many limbs and branches), it was in the Roman Church, which cites Peter then James as first pontiffs. If you look at other denominations, they were largely driven by ego and passing corruption of the clergy by aristocrats (Lutheranism) and by political gambits (Anglicanism). There are a number of offshoots that were extremists of one sort or another (e.g. Marcionites who wanted to eliminate all Judaic elements in Christianity; Arians who believed in a unitary God and denied the divinity of Christ; and Anabaptists who were a motley of ascetics and lunatics).
What I would contend is that to the extent that there is legitimacy beyond Rome, to a lesser degree but still a considerable extent, it is to be found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Notwithstanding the theological confusion and corruption of the Nestorians, those Christian holdouts in northern Africa, which are almost all in communion now with Rome, are also legitimate, especially in terms of apostolic succession.
The Stark book: https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Christianity-Movement-Largest-Religion/dp/0062007696
You might think that. I don't want to dox myself by divulging too much, but I know that there are no-bullshit heavy hitters amongst the clergy and lay (i.e. in the Catholic Church in Canada) that are throwing down in ways the media won't cover but are seismic. Just not in Quebec.
Trust me, buddy, I get you and think you've raised some fair points and concerns.
I'd like to highlight one example. The Toronto dioceses never ran a residential school; it has nothing whatsoever to do with them (there is no national Canadian Catholic Church despite ridiculous suggestions to the contrary, discounting ~2000 of the Roman diocesan system). Some activist put hundreds of orange ribbons around the Cathedral downtown--I don't know if it occurs to them that orange is a color long associated with anti-Catholicism and anti-Irish bigotry.
Now, to take down these ribbons, themselves constituting a libel, would give the activist a photo-op and an opportunity for the CBC to seek another unwarranted and innocent pound of flesh. I'm surprised a lay Catholic hasn't taken them down, but understand that it would only serve to engage the professionally offended.
Also note: many of the wealthy dioceses in the West had nothing to do with the residential schools and didn't operate them (e.g. Calgary). It was actually in the 90s when the protestant churches made a deal to pay up then, despite themselves also not bearing much if any 'guilt' in many circumstances. The Catholic churches refused and for good reason. That's part of the reason why post-TRC, there are many in the grievance industry keen to extort money they believe is owing. (Sadly, much of the diocesan funds taken in those regions where residential schools had existed had been earmarked for charitable causes, and instead ended up being claimed by individuals who presented no evidence and were permitted to offer testimony without cross-examination.)