The implications of the phrase: protestant reformation.

[JonNC]

I am told by most non-Catholics that the Catholic Church, in communion with Rome, is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem, yet the Protestant reformation stems from the Catholic church, in communion with Rome.

If the CC is not the church founded by Jesus (just another man-made church) -then why the need for the protestant reformation?

Shouldn’t the church, founded by Jesus Christ, first be located and then reformed?

Doesn’t the word reformation suggest that the Catholic Church was in fact the church founded by Jesus?

I think you make a good point, Joe. The conclusion to the Augsburg Confession claims that nothing taught by the Lutheran reformers was outside the teachings of the Church Catholic. Later, the desire is expressed to remain in apostolic succession.

To be sure, the intentions of the reformers were not to cause schism - do you still have that Luther quote from his letter intended for Leo? - but to reform the Church, which they viewed as, in the west, the Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

So, yes, the undivided Church is the Church founded by Christ, from which the Church now is schism - east and west, and within the west - came. To deny this, ISTM, is to deny our roots and heritage as Christians.

To your point, and referencing poster ciero’s comment about the “deformation”, if the Reformation’s intentions and reformationists’ desires were to reform the Church, then in fact we must continue to work to that end (reconciliation), and the focus of that effort must be with the see of Rome.
If we fail to continue in that way, if we become “comfortable” in schism, then the efforts of the reformers were in vain, and it truly was a “deformation”.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC;7618487]I think you make a good point, Joe. The conclusion to the Augsburg Confession claims that nothing taught by the Lutheran reformers was outside the teachings of the Church Catholic. Later, the desire is expressed to remain in apostolic succession.

To be sure, the intentions of the reformers were not to cause schism - do you still have that Luther quote from his letter intended for Leo? - but to reform the Church, which they viewed as, in the west, the Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

So, yes, the undivided Church is the Church founded by Christ, from which the Church now is schism - east and west, and within the west - came. To deny this, ISTM, is to deny our roots and heritage as Christians.

To your point, and referencing poster ciero’s comment about the “deformation”, if the Reformation’s intentions and reformationists’ desires were to reform the Church, then in fact we must continue to work to that end (reconciliation), and the focus of that effort must be with the see of Rome.
If we fail to continue in that way, if we become “comfortable” in schism, then the efforts of the reformers were in vain, and it truly was a “deformation”.

Jon

I agree with everything you have said Jon!

 

[bogeydogg]

Actually Joe I would say that the HS guides the Church of Christ by leading men into all righteousness. This righteousness is not up for grabs and and it is not subject to change. I would say that in so far as any church follows this leading it is of the HS, but I would also be very careful to say that I am highly doubtful of the claims of most schismatic churches.

However I believe the Body, being scattered to the four winds, is not found under one sign. I am talking about individual believer saved by grace through faith to works ordained by God for His glory. These people are gathered in like lost sheep and where they happen to be is irrelevant. I would say that Rome has claim to longevity, but that some of her teachings are such that I have a hard time calling the full corpus of her teaching Christian. Nevertheless I am thoroughly persuaded that at her core is the Apostolic teaching by which men must be saved.

I would say a select few other churches could make this claim.

But in the main the work of the HS in the Body is that of gathering in sheep spread far and wide because there have been so few faithful shepherds.

God Bless

 

[Hiskid1973]

I have been walking with Christ for almost 40 years(had a powerful conversion experience Aug. 1973). In all that time, I could count on my fingers, those who denied the Rome see as being part of the original catholic church…I think “catholic” started being used after the first century…

 

[joe370]

Actually Joe I would say that the HS guides the Church of Christ by leading men into all righteousness. This righteousness is not up for grabs and and it is not subject to change. I would say that in so far as any church follows this leading it is of the HS, but I would also be very careful to say that I am highly doubtful of the claims of most schismatic churches.

You and I as per sola scriptura, can doubt those schismatic churches but they are just as entitled to say that their schismatic churches are being guided into all truth as well; you know what I mean? Even churches you and I find highly doubtful as to their doctrinal message.

However I believe the Body, being scattered to the four winds, is not found under one sign. I am talking about individual believer saved by grace through faith to works ordained by God for His glory. These people are gathered in like lost sheep and where they happen to be is irrelevant.

I agree. It’s not there fault that they were raised in a church that is different from other churches, just as it’s not the fault of the Jew or Muslim or Buddhist who was/is raised in a completely different faith.

I would say that Rome has claim to longevity, but that some of her teachings are such that I have a hard time calling the full corpus of her teaching Christian. Nevertheless I am thoroughly persuaded that at her core is the Apostolic teaching by which men must be saved.

I had a hard time with some of them as well friend.

I would say a select few other churches could make this claim.

Agreed. For me it’s the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But in the main the work of the HS in the Body is that of gathering in sheep spread far and wide because there have been so few faithful shepherds.

God Bless

I agree brother.

God bless my friend…

 

[bogeydogg]

To be sure a Church can claim it is being led, but apart from the fruits of that leading such as the upbuilding of the body, the edification of the believers, the ingathering of more of the previously lost into the fold, and I think maybe most importantly of all a deep respect for and reverential holy fear before at least the sacraments of baptism and the Table what are we to make of that claim?

Anyone can call themselves anything but if they “take the sacrament” with coca cola and peanut butter and jelly (I’m not kidding) then of what use is their confession of faith seeing they have no fear before them for the presence of the Lord.

Also I think the sort of infighting which takes place, especially among the so-called Calvinist groups and the Arminian/ Wesleyan groups throws serious doubt on the confession of faith which people profess. Sorry this one if fresh on my mind because I quit an online group today because I had a group of folks complaining that I was not Calvinist a group complaining that I was not Arminian and a group complaining that I wouldn’t pick a side and get into my box so the rest could deal with me.

This sort of quarreling destroys unity and where there is no unity I have a hard time believing there is other fruit as well.

God Bless

 

[InspiritCarol]

People who deny this are trolls

Aww… Some are definitely deliberately misleading the followers of Christ… but most of the ones I have met have been good hearted people who just have trusted the wrong teachers w/o question and then… you know… never bothered to look up something they took as fact.

It’s actually kind of astounding how much information we never bother to fact-check. Who has the time? All too often we end up trusting people we really shouldn’t.

But… yes … I wonder what happens to trolls when they die … Is that when the mill-stone thing applies?

~sigh~ I suppose we should pray for them.

 

[AveChriste11]

Yeah, I don’t understand how people can say the Catholic Church is not a true church. One of the hallmarks of some church being trustworthy back in the early days, is that it could indeed trace its roots back to the Apostles. Those Protestants who subscribe to the Great Apostasy theory, I have always wondered…

If the Church and her true teachings had really been lost for so long, how can you be sure that you are the one who has re-discovered it? The idea of the Great Apostasy goes hand in hand with her spouse “the Invisible Church” which ascended into Heaven…

 

[joe370]

Hey Bogeydogg…

To be sure a Church can claim it is being led, but apart from the fruits of that leading such as the upbuilding of the body, the edification of the believers, the ingathering of more of the previously lost into the fold, and I think maybe most importantly of all a deep respect for and reverential holy fear before at least the sacraments of baptism and the Table what are we to make of that claim?

Every church leadership, regardless of denomination, is responsible for the edification of the believers in their respective church, but I don’t think that all of these autonomous churches are being led by the holy spirit. Could it be that just one church is being guided into all truth? After all Jesus only established one church, built on the apostles and prophets.

Anyone can call themselves anything but if they “take the sacrament” with coca cola and peanut butter and jelly (I’m not kidding) then of what use is their confession of faith seeing they have no fear before them for the presence of the Lord.

I agree, but most protestant churches do not believe in the true presence of our Savior in the Holy Eucharist, and they are right if the practice of sola scriptura (scripture alone as the Christians final authority) - is from God, but of course scripture alone does not support that practice.

Also I think the sort of infighting which takes place, especially among the so-called Calvinist groups and the Arminian/ Wesleyan groups throws serious doubt on the confession of faith which people profess. Sorry this one if fresh on my mind because I quit an online group today because I had a group of folks complaining that I was not Calvinist a group complaining that I was not Arminian and a group complaining that I wouldn’t pick a side and get into my box so the rest could deal with me. This sort of quarreling destroys unity and where there is no unity I have a hard time believing there is other fruit as well.

I am confused: these are all sola scriptura proponents, so what gives them the right to dictate anything? I thought scripture alone was their one and only authority?

We are all sinners and perhaps infighting is the natural result of said sin and maybe that was why Jesus sent the holy spirit to guide His church so that all truth could be known in spite of all the infighting?

Your thoughts friend…

 

[joe370]

Yeah, I don’t understand how people can say the Catholic Church is not a true church. One of the hallmarks of some church being trustworthy back in the early days, is that it could indeed trace its roots back to the Apostles. Those Protestants who subscribe to the Great Apostasy theory, I have always wondered…

If the Church and her true teachings had really been lost for so long, how can you be sure that you are the one who has re-discovered it? The idea of the Great Apostasy goes hand in hand with her spouse “the Invisible Church” which ascended into Heaven…

I agree. If the CC established by God, failed at some point in history then why would anyone put all their trust in a church founded by mere man, and the CC must be the church founded by God for the 16th century reformation which stems from the CC, claims to be the fix for God’s one church.

 

[bogeydogg]

Joe

I thought about this a long time because you ask a really good question. Since I do believe that Apostolic succession is real, and I do believe that Christ gave the Apostles the Church, and clearly the Roman church has been around since the earliest days (Peter/ Paul/ Clement) then how do I as a person who believes these things deny the authority of Rome? And do I deny because I believe that Apostolic Succession is lost?

I do not believe that any old church has the right to interpret the Bible any way they choose. I realize you will know this from my earlier posts but what comes next is going to be controversial so I wanted to make that clear for those more inclined to jump on me.

If I understand your thoughts correctly you basically argue for the authority of the Roman See is the center of the Apostolic Church founded by Christ because because of Apostolic Succession, the existence of the Roman Church during the time of the Apostles, and the authority given them by Christ which was then given to the bishops.

My reply to this is that Rome is not the only church which could claim this. We know for example that the Armenian Rite was established in a community which was not only Christian from the very earliest days but Jewish before that. The same could not be said of Rome. We also know that the Byzantian/ Eastern Rites also have the same qualifications as Rome. And yet we do not recognize these rites as being on equal footing with Rome and why?

Doctrine

The Armenian Rite apostacized itself because it followed the heretic Nestorius. When Nestorianism was anathematized at Ephesus and again at Chalcedon the Armenian rite chose to leave Rome behind rather than be subjected to Orthodox teaching. The same is true with the Byzantine Church and the philioque controversy and the right understanding of the Trinity. Eastern and Western Rites are separate to this day because of this schism.

So clearly it not age or Apostolic Succession nor geography which makes a Church but its doctrine.

For this reason I believe that Rome has left the teachings of Paul and Augustine and Christ behind by declaring that men must cooperate with grace so that actual righteousness inheres in the believer and that this cooperation along with the sacraments is how we are saved.

I believe that Orthodox Christianity teaches us that the righteousness which we have is a gift from God which we never earn and that any good thing we do is unprofitable and filthy, but is accepted by God because He is gracious. However these good works follow on salvation which is given by imputation of righteousness and that follows on faith which is given by regeneration which is performed only by God on dead men who can not and would not save themselves.

I am thoroughly persuaded that this is Orthodox doctrine which has been taught clearly and affirmed most strongly by Augustine and his opposition to Pelagius and Cassianus but also taught with great clarity from the founding of the church because it is the teaching of the Apostles. I also know that this is precisely the doctrine which was anathematized by Rome at Trent which anathema has never been rescinded.

But Rome had left the Apostolic Faith because of her Doctrine, no matter where she is located or who had served the People of God in the past within her walls, and that leaving means that in excommunicating those who had studied the Apostolic Faith and said Rome was in error; had proved their point by herself refusing to come back to the Orthodox Faith.

Do I think the divisions are so great anymore? No I do not.

Do I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian Church in spite of these small divisions? No.

Do I believe that there are many Christians faithfully serving Christ within the Roman Catholic Church in spite of the doctrinal errors she teaches? Yes I do.

Why do I believe this? Because the power of the Gospel is such that it pverrides errant teaching wherever the Church is found; that Church being the Body of Christ composed of those who are His from the foundation of the world.

I know you will disagree and I hope you are not mad at me. I love the Catholic Church and I believe it to be a force for great good in the world, but these doctrinal issues are important which the Church has affirmed many times with such controversies as the Pelagians, the Donatists, the Montanists, the Nestorians, the Marcionites, the Arians, on and on. The Church has always stood for Doctrinal truth in the face of opposition, and I believe when the Reformers told Rome she had erred; the Church again was standing for Truth in the face of opposition.

For these reasons I am not a Roman Catholic and I believe the See’s call to all Christendom to rejoin her is illegitimate no matter how much authority she arrogates to herself.

God Bless

 

[AveChriste11]

Joe

I thought about this a long time because you ask a really good question. Since I do believe that Apostolic succession is real, and I do believe that Christ gave the Apostles the Church, and clearly the Roman church has been around since the earliest days (Peter/ Paul/ Clement) then how do I as a person who believes these things deny the authority of Rome? And do I deny because I believe that Apostolic Succession is lost?

I do not believe that any old church has the right to interpret the Bible any way they choose. I realize you will know this from my earlier posts but what comes next is going to be controversial so I wanted to make that clear for those more inclined to jump on me.

Doctrine

I believe that Orthodox Christianity teaches us that the righteousness which we have is a gift from God which we never earn and that any good thing we do is unprofitable and filthy, but is accepted by God because He is gracious. However these good works follow on salvation which is given by imputation of righteousness and that follows on faith which is given by regeneration which is performed only by God on dead men who can not and would not save themselves.

I am thoroughly persuaded that this is Orthodox doctrine which has been taught clearly and affirmed most strongly by Augustine and his opposition to Pelagius and Cassianus but also taught with great clarity from the founding of the church because it is the teaching of the Apostles. I also know that this is precisely the doctrine which was anathematized by Rome at Trent which anathema has never been rescinded.

But Rome had left the Apostolic Faith because of her Doctrine, no matter where she is located or who had served the People of God in the past within her walls, and that leaving means that in excommunicating those who had studied the Apostolic Faith and said Rome was in error; had proved their point by herself refusing to come back to the Orthodox Faith.

Do I think the divisions are so great anymore? No I do not.

Do I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian Church in spite of these small divisions? No.

Do I believe that there are many Christians faithfully serving Christ within the Roman Catholic Church in spite of the doctrinal errors she teaches? Yes I do.

Why do I believe this? Because the power of the Gospel is such that it pverrides errant teaching wherever the Church is found; that Church being the Body of Christ composed of those who are His from the foundation of the world.

For these reasons I am not a Roman Catholic and I believe the See’s call to all Christendom to rejoin her is illegitimate no matter how much authority she arrogates to herself.

God Bless

Hi there Bogey,

God bless you! First off, you may be meaning Orthodox with a small “o”? I truly believe that the Faith vs. Works arguments, and the differences between the Protestant understanding originally proposed by the Lutherans and the Catholic understanding are really pretty close. I truly believe that you are saying works must be required with faith. For that is why the Lord judges the nations based on their charity, ‘Whatever you did to the least of these my brethren, you did it unto me.’ He was sick, hungry, and in need of shelter and we did not bother to care for him. We had no charity in our hearts, it is not enough to say “I believe” for even the demons believe in One God and shudder, to quote James…

I agree with you that God’s grace is a free gift, which can not be earned in any way. We are given those graces in the sacraments, not because we earned them – but because Christ loves us as the Holy Spirit works through them. Again, we are not earning salvation! God’s little “graces” that propel us towards salvation are to be found by entering into the life of the Church. Following her teachings, in the light of the Gospel are what we must do because we love our God and Savior. For that’s the new commandment, isn’t it? To love one another as He loved us, by giving of ourselves for our brethren. By not focusing on our sinful passions and learning to live in AGAPE.

The Orthodox have always understood that salvation is a process, where we must use our will in cooperation with God’s Will. How do we know God’s will? By following the Church, for outside of the Church there is no salvation. This is not to say that the Church saves, for only Christ saves. Yet as I have said before the Church teaches us follow to Jesus better every day and that’s why. This is what has been termed synergy. This should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox, and the Roman Catholics are in complete agreement on this much.

Peace be with you!

 

[joe370]

Hey bogeydogg…

J

oe

I thought about this a long time because you ask a really good question. Since I do believe that Apostolic succession is real, and I do believe that Christ gave the Apostles the Church, and clearly the Roman church has been around since the earliest days (Peter/ Paul/ Clement) then how do I as a person who believes these things deny the authority of Rome? And do I deny because I believe that Apostolic Succession is lost?

I do not believe that any old church has the right to interpret the Bible any way they choose. I realize you will know this from my earlier posts but what comes next is going to be controversial so I wanted to make that clear for those more inclined to jump on me.

If I understand your thoughts correctly you basically argue for the authority of the Roman See is the center of the Apostolic Church founded by Christ because because of Apostolic Succession, the existence of the Roman Church during the time of the Apostles, and the authority given them by Christ which was then given to the bishops.

My reply to this is that Rome is not the only church which could claim this. We know for example that the Armenian Rite was established in a community which was not only Christian from the very earliest days but Jewish before that. The same could not be said of Rome. We also know that the Byzantian/ Eastern Rites also have the same qualifications as Rome. And yet we do not recognize these rites as being on equal footing with Rome and why?

For me, as a former protestant, it came down to the following passage when I was torn between the EOC and the CC, and the Catholic church in communion with Rome is the only church that can scripturally and historically claim to be the church of Matthew16: And I tell you that you are Peter, (cephas) - and on this rock (cephas) - I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Doctrine

The Armenian Rite apostacized itself because it followed the heretic Nestorius. When Nestorianism was anathematized at Ephesus and again at Chalcedon the Armenian rite chose to leave Rome behind rather than be subjected to Orthodox teaching. The same is true with the Byzantine Church and the philioque controversy and the right understanding of the Trinity. Eastern and Western Rites are separate to this day because of this schism.

Agreed.

So clearly it not age or Apostolic Succession nor geography which makes a Church but its doctrine.

I agree that geography does not make a church; Jesus is the maker of His church as per scripture and He is still, through His chosen ministers, building His church and according to scripture, He built it on Simon (which means small grain of sand) - renamed Rock.

You just said: "Since I do believe that Apostolic succession is real, so, in which church in the world today, do see that apostolic succession still being real, if not the CC?

Doctrine makes the church???

Confused. The CC codified the bible in the 4th century when 7 new testament books were disputed by some, in certain parts of the church, in the Roman empire, and it is filled with nothing but doctrine, and the CC defined the many doctrines embraced by all today. For example, doctrines such as the Trinity, when Christians were questioning the the divine makeup of God, the hypostatic union, when certain Christians were questioning Christ’s humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, Theotokos when certain people were challenging the notion that Mary is the mother of God. When certain doctrines, such as these, just to name a few, were being challenged it was the CC that stepped up via the guidance of the holy spirit, and settled the matter once and for all, and if not for the CC, you and I might not believe what we believe today, vis-a-vis those three examples.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

For this reason I believe that Rome has left the teachings of Paul and Augustine and Christ behind by declaring that men must cooperate with grace so that actual righteousness inheres in the believer and that this cooperation along with the sacraments is how we are saved.

I am not sure what you mean when you say: “left the teachings of Paul and Augustine and Christ behind by declaring that men must cooperate with grace so that actual righteousness inheres in the believer?”

The CC teaches that we are saved by Jesus alone and Jesus gave His church the sacraments as the cement that binds us all as one, as living stones. For example, we are born into Jesus’ church, as a united family, through the sacrament of baptism, "Jesus answered, ““Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into the Kingdom of God!” We eat Jesus’ Body and Blood as family (food for the immortal soul) - *“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” *- and we become one as a family, with Jesus, just as Paul said by eating Jesus’ Body, "because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. And when we sin, which is going to happen for it is a part of our fallen nature, Jesus gave us the sacrament of reconciliation, so that we can once again eat His flesh and drink His blood, *"Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” *And we die in Jesus’ church, which is the house of the living God. like all the sacraments, holy anointing was instituted by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry, “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.”

It’s the sacraments, instituted by Christ that keep His church one and united as one great big family on earth.

I believe that Orthodox Christianity teaches us that the righteousness which we have is a gift from God which we never earn and that any good thing we do is unprofitable and filthy, but is accepted by God because He is gracious.

As does the CC!!! The CC however, also believes, as does the EOC, that “faith without works is dead,” as I am sure you do. If I thought that the CC taught that we can earn our way into heaven I would not belong to the CC.

However these good works follow on salvation which is given by imputation of righteousness and that follows on faith which is given by regeneration which is performed only by God on dead men who can not and would not save themselves.

The CC believes that Jesus is the only Man that can save!!! Imputation may be used negatively to refer to the transfer of the sin and guilt of Adam to the rest of humankind. Positively, imputation refers to the righteousness of Christ being transfered to those who believe on him for salvation. The CC teaches this.

I am thoroughly persuaded that this is Orthodox doctrine which has been taught clearly and affirmed most strongly by Augustine and his opposition to Pelagius and Cassianus

By the way, Augustine was without doubt a Christian belonging to the CC. He was instrumental in my conversion.

but also taught with great clarity from the founding of the church because it is the teaching of the Apostles.

Totally agree.

I also know that this is precisely the doctrine which was anathematized by Rome at Trent which anathema has never been rescinded.

Not following you?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

But Rome had left the Apostolic Faith because of her Doctrine, no matter where she is located or who had served the People of God in the past within her walls, and that leaving means that in excommunicating those who had studied the Apostolic Faith and said Rome was in error; had proved their point by herself refusing to come back to the Orthodox Faith.

Thus far I have seen no proof that the CC in communion with Rome, left the Apostolic Faith! But let’s say for the sake of argument, that she did: Where should a catholic turn, if in fact the CC of Rome left the apostolic faith, church membership wise?

Do I think the divisions are so great anymore? No I do not.

Things that divide the CC and the EOC are scant. Division is everywhere in the protestant sphere, but if you disagree, that’s cool brother!

Do I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian Church in spite of these small divisions? No.

It’s not a Christian church?? Perhaps that was not what you meant? ?

Do I believe that there are many Christians faithfully serving Christ within the Roman Catholic Church in spite of the doctrinal errors she teaches? Yes I do.

Perhaps you could help me find the one church, via apostolic succession, that has steered clear of errors?

Why do I believe this? Because the power of the Gospel is such that it pverrides errant teaching wherever the Church is found; that Church being the Body of Christ composed of those who are His from the foundation of the world.

The gospel is not self-interpretive. Scripture needs an interpreter - correct? How can the gospels override errant teaching wherever the Church is found, without an interpreter, guided by the holy spirit, into all truth?

I know you will disagree and I hope you are not mad at me. I love the Catholic Church and I believe it to be a force for great good in the world, but these doctrinal issues are important which the Church has affirmed many times with such controversies as the Pelagians, the Donatists, the Montanists, the Nestorians, the Marcionites, the Arians, on and on. The Church has always stood for Doctrinal truth in the face of opposition, and I believe when the Reformers told Rome she had erred; the Church again was standing for Truth in the face of opposition.

I never get mad brother, after all, that is not Jesus’ way, and we should always strive to imitate Jesus. Anger divides and our goal is oneness and unity.

By the way, why trust the CC, regarding controversies such as the Pelagians, the Donatists, the Montanists, the Nestorians, the Marcionites, the Arians? Is it because the CC, at the time, was being guided by the holy spirit into all truth?

For these reasons I am not a Roman Catholic and I believe the See’s call to all Christendom to rejoin her is illegitimate no matter how much authority she arrogates to herself.

Well, if the CC is the church of Matthew 16, John 16:13, John 14:16, Matthew 28:20, acts 1 and 2, then She arrogates nothing to herself. Actually that is what every new protestant church, since the 16th century reformation, does via sola scriptura as their one and only authority, and sola scriptura is not biblical and was not taught by either Jesus or His apostles.

If the CC is the church founded by God on Simon, renamed Rock, and history says that she is, then the CC was given the power to teach, straight from Jesus Himself when He said:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

If the CC is the church of Matthew 16 then Jesus is with the CC always, to the very end of the age.

It sounds like you are leaning toward the EOC? Bogeydogg I totally respect your right to believe what you believe, and it has been a joy dialogging with you brother.