I don't need to prove what is self-evident and accepted by all. - Hermann
Hey Hermann, Guess what? NO ONE OUTSIDE THE ROMAN CHURCH BELIEVES THIS!
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. - Hermann
If you can't defend your position, there's no reason to demean everyone else's belief. Namely, that the Church Christ founded is not directly equivalent to a humanly denominated corporation with "Roman" in its name, nor some organization defined by the succession of people holding a particular office. Everyone else's belief isn't "childish nonsense" just because you refuse to see the true boundaries of Christ's Universal Church, "the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine" (Calvin, quoted in full below).
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. - Hermann
HOW DARE YOU so mislead concerning the Reformers' position? NONE of the Reformers EVER equated the Roman Catholic Church with the Body of Christ, and they certainly didn't do it thinking that the RCC was a "direct descendant of the Apostolic and Patristic Church." Every one of them expressed that it was fidelity to Christ, the sacraments, and true doctrine that defined the "true and lawful" Church.
Unlike you, I actually will quote a Reformer to back my Position: Calvin.
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
