I don't need to prove what is self-evident and accepted by all. If the Catholic Church is not the original Church Christ founded, then from what did it spring, and where did the Church Christ found go? We don't need such childish nonesense. The Reformers openly admitted that their revolt was not over a disbelief in the lineage of the Church of Rome, but over doctrinal disputes where they felt Rome had strayed from the Apostles. You are more than free to believe as they do, but please don't try to push the cockamamie line that the Catholic Church is not the direct descendant of the Apostolic and Patristic Church.
(As opposed to, say, the Orthodox Church.)
The Roman Catholic Church believes the Eastern Orthodox are dissident Catholics who are still essentially part of the same Church. This is why we recognize the validity of their jurisdictional rulings, and do not dispute their characterization of themselves as Catholics in their confessions and creeds. Our dispute is best characterized as a family squabble.
The Reformers openly admitted that their revolt was not over a disbelief in the lineage of the Church of Rome, but over doctrinal disputes where they felt Rome had strayed from the Apostles.
This is also my sense of it ... as opposed to ..." ... the dreaming up of all sorts of arguments about various pretended "errors".Two quite different things, don't you think ?
The Roman Catholic Church believes the Eastern Orthodox are dissident Catholics who are still essentially part of the same Church. This is why we recognize the validity of their jurisdictional rulings, and do not dispute their characterization of themselves as Catholics in their confessions and creeds. Our dispute is best characterized as a family squabble.
But, ... are you content to dwell in the same house ?
It is self-evident that it is NOT accepted by all.
Do you remember Israel? They were God's chosen instrument in the world to reveal His glory to the nation. But they failed. The fell away into sin and, for the time being, are cut off.
The Gentiles were then grafted in, like a wild branch, and were able to receive nourishment from the original root.
Paul states it much more clearly...
"But some of these branches from Abraham's tree, some of the Jews, have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, were grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in God's rich nourishment of his special olive tree. But you must be careful not to brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. Remember, you are just a branch, not the root.
"Well," you may say, "those branches were broken off to make room for me." Yes, but remember--those branches, the Jews, were broken off because they didn't believe God, and you are there because you do believe. Don't think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen. For if God did not spare the branches he put there in the first place, he won't spare you either."
I might point out that Paul wrote this to the church at Rome.
So the Jews were broken off because of unbelief. What! Did they stop believing in God? No, they still believe in God and read the Torah and have continued on with their rituals for almost 2,000 years. But they are unaware that they have been cut off!
***don't try to push the cockamamie line that the Catholic Church is not the direct descendant of the Apostolic and Patristic Church.***
You think you are the root, but you are only an alien branch grafted in. And if your tradition has strayed too far from the simple faith and obedience that Jesus taught then Paul warned you that you would be cut off. Would you cease to believe in God? No. Would you continue on with your teaching and ritual for generations? Yes. Would you know you had been cut off? Probably not.
However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine. Daniel [Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his reign was not to be such as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the church. From this it therefore is evident that we by no means deny that the churches under his tyranny remain churches. But these he has profaned by his sacrilegious impiety, afflicted by his inhuman domination, corrupted and well-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrines, which are like poisoned drinks. In them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel overthrown, piety scattered, the worship of God nearly wiped out. In them, briefly, everything is so confused that there we see the face of Babylon rather than that of the Holy City of God. To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the church remain--especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devil’s wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church.
- Calvin’s Institutes, IV:2.12; Emphasis Mine