Replies

It seems to me that your entire ecclesiological theology is complete focused on being antiCatholic. It is what defines your brand of Christianity. You have no physical, real, genuine, church to proffer as a replacement for the Catholic Church. At least the Fundamental Baptists (usually) proffer up themselves as a real physical example of the holy catholic apostolic church with that succession from the First Century until now; or at least they used to teach that; of course Westboro Baptist Church is one of those churches and all fundamental New Testament churches are local and independent so all they could choose to do is not fellowship with it, barring some heresy which would make it not really what it said it was. Is that what you believe or are you really one of those universal invisible body types who teach a church no one can see, with a history no one can read, with all things defined by the antiCatholic bogeyman ?

It seems you are having a problem separating a discussion disputing claims Catholics are making on this thread with others stating why they are in disagreement with that conclusion. I didn't post this thread. A Roman Catholic did and most likely with the intent to provoke a reaction from those being attacked and which WAS an anti-Protestant article. You can't turn around and blame those who defend against such claims as doing so out of an anti-Catholic bias. Scold the one who keeps putting these discord causing threads - not those who won't sit by and not have a reply.

I've already explained plenty of times that there ARE real, physical, genuine churches (your Catechism calls them "eccesliastical communities") that CONTAIN those that are members of Christ's body. They may go by different names but what unites them is the rule of the Christian faith as it has always, everywhere and by all been believed and as spelled out in sacred Scripture. Everything that Jesus and His Apostles/disciples taught from the start is found within the Bible. God left nothing out pertaining to truth and Godliness. What binds believers together is the unity of the Spirit, the bond of love and saving faith in Jesus Christ. This body HAS been visible throughout ALL time and it is incredibly short-sighted, not to mention elitist, to assert it is ONLY found in one assembly that was started in Rome. There actually were MANY churches in Rome - it's a big city. The churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Colossi, Constantinople and others were no more or less visible congregations of Christians. What bound them together was the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

Maybe if you could think outside that box for once, you could start to grasp what MAKES a church a part of the Body of Christ. There's no need for a "replacement" church since the REAL body of Christ has always existed and spans nations, peoples, languages and time - all become one IN Christ Jesus.

"...body of Christ has always existed and spans nations, peoples, languages and time - all become one IN Christ Jesus."

Amen! a thread through human history that will never be broken.

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen".

I've already explained plenty of times that there ARE real, physical, genuine churches (your Catechism calls them "eccesliastical communities") that CONTAIN those that are members of Christ's body.

not sure I understand you; are you claiming these are bona fide churches or only that there are separated brethren there who belong to the one holy catholic apostolic church ? if the former, can you take a stab at identifying which of the thousands (start with mainline) are inside and outside your model ?