I would agree with Jude24's statement: "The issue is where the bounds of "the Church" are."
An apostolic church is more readily identifiable by being in spiritual unity with the apostles than in temporal descent from the apostles.
The true children are not those circumised in the flesh but those whose hearts have been circumcised. That has not changed.
"An apostolic church is more readily identifiable by being in spiritual unity with the apostles than in temporal descent from the apostles."
Until the advent of Protestantism, the ONLY bishops recognized as being apostolic were those who could trace their ordinal lineage back to the apostles. The Church took, and takes, great care to maintain the lists (the diptyches) of apostolic succession. The concept of "spiritual unity" with the apostles is distinctly Protestant and, by comparison, quite new.
For Orthodox Christians, the definition of The Church set out by +Ignatius of Antioch is the correct one. I am unaware of any Protestant group which fits that definition, though I understand the Anglicans might be able to make the claim. It is for that reason that +BXVI could write that Portestant churches are strictly speaking churches but rather ecclesial assemblies. From an Orthodox perspective, however, that does not of necessity mean that the potential for theosis is missing in Protestants.
I'm not catholic, so obviously I agree with your post #94.
The church is where you find it; as the saying goes, God knows who are his own.
Among catholics, as among any subdivision of the church, you will find people who do not know God, and you will find people who are deeply in love with him. And others all along the spectrum between the two. That is as much true of the leadership as the rank and file, that is true of catholic and evangelical churches alike.
Pope John Paul 2 always struck me as deeply Christian; whether you judge that to be because or in spite of his catholic roots depends on your point of view; he was nevertheless in my view a great man and a Christian.
I was worried who would be chosen to replace him, and I have since been pleased that the man who now fills his shoes is another very worthy man, to all appearances deeply Christian himself, and with perhaps even a more profound understanding than his predecessor. It remains to be seen what history will throw at him, and how well he will navigate his ship in the years ahead. But I am pleased with what I see so far.
I have to say this; I could never be a catholic, there are too many things in the official church, in its history, in its organization, in any number of things which were I to convert I would have to accept. But I have always loved catholics, the people themselves, and the "unseen" church that exists alongside the visible one. I have, over the years, often found myself in catholic churches around the world, worshipping there, completely at home.
But that is always the way it is with any human congregation. There is always the flawed visible church, that is hard to live with and hard to defend, and then there is the unseen church that is the real one. You can always spot the people who are members of the latter, I believe. Certainly God knows who they are.