Lynne, for all of your good intention, I don't think there is anything to substantiate what you are saying in Catholic literature. It can only be found in anti-Catholic literature and the down side of this is that the anti-Catholics do not have any history. When I was studying the Church, through the eyes of the anti-Catholic, I marveled at the way they would criticize the Catholic Church in history. They can do this on the basis of history because the Catholic Church existed. At the same time I can’t criticize them in history, because they have no history.
So the longer I studied the Church through the eyes of the anti-Catholic, (even though what they said was negative and inaccurate) the more Catholic I became. The Catholic Church is the Church of history. Not all Protestants are anti-Catholic but the more anti-Catholic they were, the more likely they were to hide the name of their Church. This is because their history goes back often times no more than 25 or 50 years, much less 2,000 and so I would be the first to point this out. I don't blame them; I wouldn't name my Church either, if I my Church had no history.
The famous Anglican John Neuman, once said a knowledge of history is the death of Protestantism. This is because the one true Church established by Jesus Christ has to show a history that goes back to the time of Christ and the Apostles. This is so because Jesus made a promise “THE GATES OF HELL WOULD NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CHURCH.” If there was a time, in history, that the Church did not exist, than Jesus would have not kept His promise and the Bible would be wrong. Jesus has kept his promise because the Catholic Church in time has existed going back to the time of Christ and the Apostles.
When anti-Catholics speak against the Church of history they are unwittingly speaking to the strength of the Catholic Church and the weakness of the Protestant experiment. There are some who speak against the Church in an effort to say that the Catholic Church did not really historically exist, going back to the time of the Apostles. Again they must try to show that there has to be a Church going back to the time of Christ and the apostles otherwise Jesus is a liar or a least sadly mistaken.
The problem is that they don’t take the next step and show how their particular Church has a history that goes back to the time of Christ and the Apostles, because of course it doesn’t. Not only do they not do this, but they don’t even name their particular Church. Smart on their part, because I would be the first to point out their short history and that their church does not go back to the time of Christ and the Apostles and therefore, cannot be the Church that Jesus and the Apostles founded.
On the other hand, who wants to be a part of a Church who is afraid to tell the world their name? In fairness to my many Protestant friends, most of them will give the name of their church. It is only the most anti-Catholic (and need I say anti-Protestant churches) who refuse to name themselves.
After all is said and done they can criticize any historical Catholic council they want. I just smile because they are not saying, what their Church was doing at that time, because it did not exist. There is a lack of intellectual honesty in the anti-Catholic arguments and this is one of the reasons why such a huge number of excellent Protestant Scholars are coming into the Catholic Church. They want to be a part of the Church that can historically show a history that goes back to the time of the Christ and the Apostles. The Catholic Church both EAST and WEST can show this long history but the anti-Catholic churches cannot.
A few main-line denominational Protestant Churches can show a history that goes all the way back, but in order to do so they must go back to the 16th Protestant reformers and beyond that their history is Catholic history. Note that all the Reformers had been Catholic. Your extreme anti-Catholic churches cannot show a history that goes back to even the to the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation, and so do not expect them any time soon to give the name of their Church. It is not going to happen.
Lynne, your criticisms of the Church are historical in nature. The history of the Catholic Church is real. Even though your criticisms of the Church are corrupt they still validate that the Church existed and thus you are unwittingly testifying to its existence going back to the time of Christ and the apostles.
If you wish to say that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church established by Jesus Christ, by all means go for it, but before you do this be ready to say how your church in history is that particular church that goes back to the time of Christ and the Apostles. I have offered this challenge before, but NO ONE has bothered to take me up on the challenge! They have run away from this issue to a myriad of different issues. I guess the best way to answer my challenge is to run the other way.
Lynne, thank you for your sincerity, may God bless you in every way and I wish you the very best.