You wrote:
“Check the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia again.
I found there no reference the THE Apostolic Church.”
And yet we all know that the editors believed in only one Apostolic Church. They believed there were different congregations within that ONE APOSTOLIC CHURCH but it was still ONE Church. See, if you look elsewhere in the old Catholic Encyclopedia you find this:
“The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche; Swedish, Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Notice, it says THE society, not the societies.
Also, after discussing the origins of the Church and several basic doctrines about it, there’s this:
“The Church is One because its members;
1.Are all united under one government
2.All profess the same faith
3.All join in a common worship”
ONE Church.
That unity is clearly at the base of the following:
“The Apostolicity of the Church consists in its identity with the body which Christ established on the foundation of the Apostles, and which He commissioned to carry on His work. No other body save this is the Church of Christ. The true Church must be Apostolic in doctrine and Apostolic in mission. Since, however, it has already been shown that the gift of infallibility was promised to the Church, it follows that where there is Apostolicity of mission, there will also be Apostolicity of doctrine. Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of Holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For “how shall they preach”, asks the Apostle, “unless they be sent?” (Romans 10:15). It is Apostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church. No historical fact can be more clear than that Apostolicity, if it is found anywhere, is found in the Catholic Church. In it there is the power of Holy orders received by Apostolic succession. In it, too, there is Apostolicity of jurisdiction; for history shows us that the Roman bishop is the successor of Peter, and as such the centre of jurisdiction. Those prelates who are united to the Roman See receive their jurisdiction from the pope, who alone can bestow it. No other Church is Apostolic. The Greek church, it is true, claims to possess this property on the strength of its valid succession of bishops. But, by rejecting the authority of the Holy See, it severed itself from the Apostolic College, and thereby forfeited all jurisdiction. Anglicans make a similar claim. But even if they possessed valid orders, jurisdiction would be wanting to them no less than to the Greeks.”
“This sent me to the Catholic Encyclopedia to learn, how exactly should the word “apostolic” be defined? What I found there was a list of ancient churches, almost NONE of which could be described as “Roman Catholic.””
Why would they? “Roman Catholic” was invented by Protestants. We’re Catholic, not “Roman Catholic.” How could the early Church call itself “Roman Catholic” when that phrase wasn’t invented yet because no Protestants yet walked the earth?
“So I think my point remains valid — there never was a historical time:”since the resurrection and Ascension of Christ, when there existed only one human Church, with only one precise doctrine, and one exalted leader to whom all others must submit”.”
Your point is invalid, silly in fact for any Christian to even believe in it. Christians do not believe in a “human Church”. The Church is from God. It is not human. It has people IN it, but it is not a human institution.
"Your point is invalid, silly in fact for any Christian to even believe in it. Christians do not believe in a “human Church”. The Church is from God. It is not human. It has people IN it, but it is not a human institution." Now Vlad, the Roman Catholic Church, even today, is entirely "human." Other words for it include "secular" and "mundane," meaning: of this world. And if there is a doubt in your mind about that, you might want to visit the Vatican someday.
And remember, when you are looking at St. Peters, you are also at the same time looking DIRECTLY at the immediate cause of the Protestant Reformation. It was after all, the money raised to build St. Peters which got Martin Luther all excited about the 95 things which he thought were rotten in Rome.
Yes, I agree with you on this much: today's Roman Catholic Church is far more spiritual and less mundanely secular than at any other time since the Council of Nicaea.
But it is still, like every other church, a human institution with a human hierarchy and human created traditions & doctrines all of which are subject to the many manifest weaknesses of the flesh, however willing it's spirit may be.
Any serious Christian wishes the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope well. No serious Christian wants to be called a "heretic" by that obviously human institution.