[sasportas]

Since we’re being so technically precise, i.e., the council being held at Jerusalem not Rome, the term “Catholic” is an anachronism also. The word “Catholic” is not in Acts 15.

Yes, we all know the council wasn’t a rosary bead counting, Mary idolatry “Roman Catholic” one, but the ones who call themselves “Roman Catholics” here on the RF never draw that distinction, they leave everyone with the impression that when we read Acts 15 we are to believe it is their Papist institution that is being represented there.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, that illustrates the difficulty of definition, especially when an institution is passing through various stages of development. As an illustration, notice the continuity we see here:

Oddly, some people seemingly expect the progression to go like this

...

But of course that's mistaken. That's because the acorn doesn't just grow. It develops into a sprout, a sprig, a sapling, a tree. After it's been growing hundreds of years, it develops hugely, not just in size and also in complexity.

Maybe you think this is childish ---maybe too rustic. But it's the best way I know to explain this. My impression is that some people look at the Church at the dawn of the Church Age (before 100 AD) and expect to see the exact same thing 1,000 years later, but bigger; and 1,000 years forward from that, but bigger yet. They seem perturbed to see development. They certainly don't expect development. They just expect re-sizing.

See what I mean?

Their implicit expectation that the Church as an earthly society ought not to look different whether it's 50 AD, 500 AD or 1000 AD is baffling to me.

I love the Church. I expect it to be fruitful (I'm switching the metaphor here from an oak tree to a grape vine.) I expect the Lord has always protected, and always will protect, this Vine which His right hand has planted.