Division is not a problem of Protestantism--it's a problem of Christianity

[ETide]

Does the Bible claim that the OT is the foundation of Truth ?

In the volume of the book it is written of Me..

You make the call..

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

To orthodoxy: Who did Christ give the keys (Mat 16:18) to?

Who made the decision in the Council of Juerasalem?

Who did the Church fathers say the Church is built on?

All who were there.

St. James, 1st Bishop of Jerusalem.

Christ Jesus.



Forgive me...

 

[ETide]

Sorry, you can't deny history.. The church was here before the NT.. for the first 2 centurys christians had only tradition to go by..Im speaking a historical fact, your just speaking an opinion..

The NT superceeds the OT.. Christ said you can't put old wineskins in new, what do you think he was talking about?

So perhaps you reject the OT scriptures as part of your bible.. that's your choice..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

there is one unified Catholic Church..

Every denomination is united with itself.

There are 300 divided protestant denominations..

1. I believe there is ONE holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church which is why when I confess the Creed, I mean it.

2. There are, currently, over 2 billion Christians, over 1 million congregations, and hundreds if not thousands of denominations. This has nothing to do with the church of Christ; there IS one holy catholic and apostolic church - it's not an institution, it's Christian.

3. The world's 2,000,000,000 do not all completely agree on all things, and the "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" needs a lot of work.

If protestant denominations can't agree with each other then that is proof that the holy spirit is not working through them..

I've never met two Catholics who completely agree on everything - so what "proof" does that provide?

For Christ is one, truth is one, and his church is one and not divided..

There are times I forget that you are Catholic! Yes, the church is one! One Lord, one faith, one baptism! One body! "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." Ahha. It's the Protestant position.

Protestantism is nothing more than a tree without its roots. And when a tree dosen't have roots it dies eventually.

I share all the same "roots" that you do.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Renton405]

So perhaps you reject the OT scriptures as part of your bible.. that's your choice..

Did I say that? the OT is important as far a pre-christ prophecy.. But even the apostle paul states that after Christ the curse of the Law has been lifted off of us.. God clearly states that he will write a new convenant on his peoples hearts..

JWs don't agree with mormons, Calvinists don't agree with Lutherans, Pentecostals don't agree with Trinitarians, SDAs don't agree with presbyterians, etc etc.. How can all these protestant denominations who don't agree with each other be "one".. do you see what I am saying..

 

[ETide]

Did I say that? the OT is important as far a pre-christ prophecy.. But even the apostle paul states that after Christ the curse of the Law has been lifted off of us.. God clearly states that he will write a new convenant on his peoples hearts..

I understand that, although you said that the church came before the bible.. that's blatantly incorrect.. unless of course you reject the OT as part of your bible.

JWs don't agree with mormons, Calvinists don't agree with Lutherans, Pentecostals don't agree with Trinitarians, SDAs don't agree with presbyterians, etc etc.. How can all these protestant denominations who don't agree with each other be "one".. do you see what I am saying..

So what, catholics disagree on numerous issues.. that has absolutely nothing to do with the SCRIPTURAL FACT that there is ONE CHURCH.. ONE BODY OF CHRIST.. so if you believe that IT is confined to the RCC, then you're deceived.. simple as that.

 

[DarkLord]

1) Erm 2 catholics who disagree.....The Catholic Church teaches the same thing. Just because a retard may thing 1+1 is 3 and the other says its 2, doesnt mean Maths is wrong. Its a ludricous arguement. However each protestant denomination differ even though they each claim the spirit guide them.

2) How can u say we agree on the essential. We cant even agree to salvation. To the catholics being in communion wif the Seat of Peter is important but not to u.

3) U claim to be part of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That same church fer the first 1500yrs taught something contrary to the Protestant belief. It did not teach sola scrptura nor symbolic percense.

4) U know ur roots. Protestant teachings did not exist fer 1500yrs and neither did ur church. Please read up on the Church fathers and see how 'protestant' they are before u choose to say u know ur roots. Tell me my dear friend...where was ur church in 1200AD?


To Orthodoxy:
It was Peter who settled the doctrinal issue on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. When Peter settled the matter, "the whole assembly kept silent." The other bishops who spoke after Peter relayed how Peter settled the matter, and spoke in union with him, just like bishops do today. Paul obeyed Peter’s decision without question. James wants every one to know at the beginning that he speaks in union with Peter when he says "Simeon has described..." As far as the statement, "it is my judgment," it is commonplace for bishops to say "it is my judgment" when they are speaking in union with the successor of Peter (just read 2,000 years of encyclicals to see what I mean). Bishops exercise full pastoral authority and can pronounce judgments, so long as it is in union with the pope who is head of the universal Church. It is only a problem when a bishop says, "it is my judgment" when he is not in union with Peter. Then we have a problem. Further, the Greek for “it is my judgment” (ego krino) really means “it is my opinion.” It does not refer to an authoritative, ecclesiastical pronouncement that James is making. This underscores that James is simply providing his opinion about how to pastorally implement Peter’s doctrinal decision. Peter spoke first. Peter resolved the doctrinal issue first. Peter was the first to speak about salvation for the Gentiles first. Peter did many things first. Peter has a primacy in the NT that cannot compare with any other disciple. Before Peter spoke, the matter was debated. After Peter spoke, the matter was settled (just like Saint Augustine said).

Peter is the rock on which the Church is built because Jesus said so in Matt. 16:18-19. Jesus also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which was to institute his authority over the earthly Church and dynastic succession of earthly representatives. See Isaiah 22:19-22. So Jesus tells us that Peter has a unique position among the rest of the apostles. Peter is the rock, the keeper of the keys, and the chief shepherd of the Church. These distinctions, of course, belong to Jesus alone. But Jesus shares them with Peter. Peter exercises these distinctions in the name of Jesus and at His direction, until Jesus comes again

Source John Salza Scripture catholic

 

[ETide]

1) Erm 2 catholics who disagree.....The Catholic Church teaches the same thing. Just because a retard may thing 1+1 is 3 and the other says its 2, doesnt mean Maths is wrong. Its a ludricous arguement. However each protestant denomination differ even though they each claim the spirit guide them.

2) How can u say we agree on the essential. We cant even agree to salvation. To the catholics being in communion wif the Seat of Peter is important but not to u.

3) U claim to be part of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That same church fer the first 1500yrs taught something contrary to the Protestant belief. It did not teach sola scrptura nor symbolic percense.

4) U know ur roots. Protestant teachings did not exist fer 1500yrs and neither did ur church. Please read up on the Church fathers and see how 'protestant' they are before u choose to say u know ur roots. Tell me my dear friend...where was ur church in 1200AD?

So what you're showing here is that you have no scriptural idea as to what the church of God actually is..

Once again.. there is ONE CHURCH.. it is Christ's church.. it's not yours.. it is not mine.. it is His church.. He is building it.. He is adding members to it as it pleases Him..

To maintain a nonsensical claim that it is the RCC, or any other denomination exclusively, is to maintain your ignorance as to what the church of God is.

 

[Renton405]

I understand that, although you said that the church came before the bible.. that's blatantly incorrect.. unless of course you reject the OT as part of your bible.



So what, catholics disagree on numerous issues.. that has absolutely nothing to do with the SCRIPTURAL FACT that there is ONE CHURCH.. ONE BODY OF CHRIST.. so if you believe that IT is confined to the RCC, then you're deceived.. simple as that.

If you believe that way you may as well include Jews and Muslims within the body too..

I was talking about the NT.. The church came before the full NT.. And even the OT wasn't as organized as you might think back then..

Let me ask you a question.. Lets say you have 10 people all read the same chosen verse in the bible. Yet all 10 people have conflicting views as to what the true meaning of the verse means after they read it.. How do you know who's interperatation is correct?

 

[ETide]

If you believe that way you may as well include Jews and Muslims within the body too..

Why is that..? Because of your statement that the church came before the bible.. lol

I was talking about the NT.. The church came before the full NT.. And even the OT wasn't as organized as you might think back then..

Regardless of the fact that the NT may not have been in the nice little package which we have today.. it is the word of God.. His words are Spirit and they are life.. and we (the church of God) are begotten by the truth, the gospel of God concerning His Son.. so even in this sense.. the gospel preceeds the church of God, as it establishes the church of God.

[bible]1 Corinthians 14:36[/bible]

Seriously.. do you actually believe that the word of God comes from you..?

Let me ask you a question.. Lets say you have 10 people all read the same chosen verse in the bible. Yet all 10 people have conflicting views as to what the true meaning of the verse means after they read it.. How do you know who's interperatation is correct?

First.. you view it in light of how it glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ in all ways, then with that basis.. you study the context of it.. and you study it carefully and prayerfully.. making sure that you're not violating some other portion of scripture..

This is a lifelong process...as there is not a person on this planet who has exhausted the word of God in its richness..

 

[DarkLord]

My friend Christ onli used 'christ' twice in the Gospel. Observe the verses which he uses them and tell me ur conclusion.

Matt 16:18-19.
The Church is built on Peter and HE RECIEVED THE KEYS AND POWERS OF BINDING AND LOOSING.

Matt 18:17:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

So u see my friend a Church must not onli be VISIBLE as Jesus says “take him to the Church” to resolve the issue. What Church? The Church that Jesus builds upon the rock of Peter. Jesus uses the same word (Greek, ecclesia) in Matthew 18 as He does in Matthew 16, the only two times Jesus uses the word ecclesia. Jesus doesn’t say “take him to the Scriptures.” Of course, God is the final authority, but He has invested the Church with His authority, by conferring the keys of authority to Peter. By requiring us to “take him to the Church,” Jesus must have intended a visible, hierarchical body that can render doctrinal and disciplinary judgments. He could not have meant thousands of differing factions and splintered sects. Otherwise, His directive would not make any sense.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1) Erm 2 catholics who disagree.....The Catholic Church teaches the same thing.

1. Of course the RC denomination agrees with itself. No one denies that. However, some might question what that has to do with unity among Christians. You might not be aware that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod agrees with itself, too. Even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints agrees with itself. So?


2. I've never met two Catholics who completely agree with each other on everything. I'm just sharing my experience, perhaps yours is the opposite.


3. For about 5 years, I was very active in both a Protestant and a Catholic congregation. There was more diversity of views in the Catholic one than in the Protestant one. My experience.

3) U claim to be part of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That same church fer the first 1500yrs taught something contrary to the Protestant belief. It did not teach sola scrptura nor symbolic percense.

I believe that my beliefs were all taught in the First Century - LONG before there even was a Roman Catholic denomination. It's in the Bible - that makes it First Century.


Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it's an epistemological approach to the norming of such - and yes, it is demonstrated LONG before there ever was an RC denomination - we see it in the Bible itself. What we do NOT see in the Bible is any mention whatsoever to the Bishop of Rome, the Infallible Pope, the Vicar of Christ, or the Roman Catholic denomination - THAT'S what came later.


You are assuming that Christ and Christianity is an institution. Protestants don't. We tend to think that Christians are people, not denominations.

4) U know ur roots. Protestant teachings did not exist fer 1500yrs and neither did ur church. Please read up on the Church fathers and see how 'protestant' they are before u choose to say u know ur roots. Tell me my dear friend...where was ur church in 1200AD?

In the hearts and lives of Christians, just as it is today. "Wherever two or three of you are gathered together, there I am in the midst of you."


While many here would argue that Augustine was, in fact, a Calvinist - I'll let that ride. We both know (I'm sure you do) that the ECF are WHOEVER the RC denomination says they are, and the little various snippets of quotes that are "Apostolic Tradition" and "Infallible Preaching" is WHATEVER the RC denomination says it is, and these men and writings mean WHATEVER the RC denomination says they mean. Protestants tend to see this as rather self-authenticating. Furthermore, we see the things that divided us: The Infallibility of the Papacy, the institutional/denominational view of Christianity, the Assumption of Mary, Aristotle's "accident" philosphy applied to the Eucharist, etc. as not supported by a solid consensus of Christians in the first few centuries but all later.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[ETide]

My friend Christ onli used 'christ' twice in the Gospel. Observe the verses which he uses them and tell me ur conclusion.

Matt 16:18-19.
The Church is built on Peter and HE RECIEVED THE KEYS AND POWERS OF BINDING AND LOOSING.

Matt 18:17:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

So u see my friend a Church must not onli be VISIBLE as Jesus says “take him to the Church” to resolve the issue. What Church? The Church that Jesus builds upon the rock of Peter. Jesus uses the same word (Greek, ecclesia) in Matthew 18 as He does in Matthew 16, the only two times Jesus uses the word ecclesia. Jesus doesn’t say “take him to the Scriptures.” Of course, God is the final authority, but He has invested the Church with His authority, by conferring the keys of authority to Peter. By requiring us to “take him to the Church,” Jesus must have intended a visible, hierarchical body that can render doctrinal and disciplinary judgments. He could not have meant thousands of differing factions and splintered sects. Otherwise, His directive would not make any sense.

So, our assembly has exercised the very portion of scripture which you're referring to here..(Matt 18) but do we believe that we're the only assembly doing this.. ?

That's silly.. His body is all over this planet..

That's the point friend.. until you can see that it's His church, His body, and that there a many members all over this earth, regardless of their denominational affiliation at the time.. then you will continue with the nonsense that it is the RCC exclusively.

I know it's tough to face these type of facts especially in a public forum like this.. but let's face it.. it is sheer nonsense to go on and on in a nonsensical way in preaching that the church of God is the RCC..

But you go ahead if that makes you feel better.

 

[Renton405]

Josiah, with that view you may as well include the Gnostics, Arians, and Marcionists as part of the body of Christ too. You have to realize that there comes a 'line' when a true doctrine church becomes seperated from a false church.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

1) Erm 2 catholics who disagree.....The Catholic Church teaches the same thing. Just because a retard may thing 1+1 is 3 and the other says its 2, doesnt mean Maths is wrong. Its a ludricous arguement. However each protestant denomination differ even though they each claim the spirit guide them.

2) How can u say we agree on the essential. We cant even agree to salvation. To the catholics being in communion wif the Seat of Peter is important but not to u.

3) U claim to be part of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That same church fer the first 1500yrs taught something contrary to the Protestant belief. It did not teach sola scrptura nor symbolic percense.

4) U know ur roots. Protestant teachings did not exist fer 1500yrs and neither did ur church. Please read up on the Church fathers and see how 'protestant' they are before u choose to say u know ur roots. Tell me my dear friend...where was ur church in 1200AD?


To Orthodoxy:
It was Peter who settled the doctrinal issue on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. When Peter settled the matter, "the whole assembly kept silent." The other bishops who spoke after Peter relayed how Peter settled the matter, and spoke in union with him, just like bishops do today. Paul obeyed Peter’s decision without question. James wants every one to know at the beginning that he speaks in union with Peter when he says "Simeon has described..." As far as the statement, "it is my judgment," it is commonplace for bishops to say "it is my judgment" when they are speaking in union with the successor of Peter (just read 2,000 years of encyclicals to see what I mean). Bishops exercise full pastoral authority and can pronounce judgments, so long as it is in union with the pope who is head of the universal Church. It is only a problem when a bishop says, "it is my judgment" when he is not in union with Peter. Then we have a problem. Further, the Greek for “it is my judgment” (ego krino) really means “it is my opinion.” It does not refer to an authoritative, ecclesiastical pronouncement that James is making. This underscores that James is simply providing his opinion about how to pastorally implement Peter’s doctrinal decision. Peter spoke first. Peter resolved the doctrinal issue first. Peter was the first to speak about salvation for the Gentiles first. Peter did many things first. Peter has a primacy in the NT that cannot compare with any other disciple. Before Peter spoke, the matter was debated. After Peter spoke, the matter was settled (just like Saint Augustine said).

Peter is the rock on which the Church is built because Jesus said so in Matt. 16:18-19. Jesus also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which was to institute his authority over the earthly Church and dynastic succession of earthly representatives. See Isaiah 22:19-22. So Jesus tells us that Peter has a unique position among the rest of the apostles. Peter is the rock, the keeper of the keys, and the chief shepherd of the Church. These distinctions, of course, belong to Jesus alone. But Jesus shares them with Peter. Peter exercises these distinctions in the name of Jesus and at His direction, until Jesus comes again

Source John Salza Scripture catholic

Who is speaking in ACTS 15:19? "Wherefore my sentence is,..."

Peter was not a Bishop at the first council my friend. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch (my Church) which started in 34 A.D., The Church of Jerusalem (Zion) was headed by St. James

The Truth that Peter spoke is the Rock on which Christ founded The Church.

Read the other Gospels as well and see that Christ left them all in charge and to run things by council with the guidance of The Holy Spirit to lead them to concensus.

No "one" was left in charge. Papal supremacy is an invention of the emperors of Rome, it is not handed down from Christ God.

Christ had 12 Apostles that constitutes a council. They were all filled with the same Holy Spirit at Pentecost, how will we then say that one is over the other. Christ did not do this. Man has assumed it, and wrongfully so, placing one above the other to vie for position of authority.

You and I will not settle this by the way... It's a 1000 year old argument.

Forgive me...

 

[DarkLord]

So tell me my friend. How would ur brother in that gospel verse get his doubts cleared if there is so many conflicting viewpoints.

If u existed in 100AD, 300AD, 1000AD...whihc church would u go to fulfil the Lord's Commandment on'hear the church'....natrually the CC fer it was the onli Church.

How can ur assembly be rite if it contradicts the other 36000. For u to be rite, the other has to be wrong. If ur church is the true church, the CC is false but history proves otherwise.

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you." Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).

My dear friend...since Christ died...fer centuries there has onli been one church...the apostolic church with CORRECT teachings (the gates of hell will not prevail against it). It seems by history, that church is the CC and not ur protestant church.

Even matrin Luther admitted it.

"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If u existed in 100AD, 300AD, 1000AD...whihc church would u go to fulfil the Lord's Commandment on'hear the church'....natrually the CC fer it was the onli Church.

There was only one church. There's still only one church. Which is why when Protestants confess in the Creed, "we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church," that's actually what we mean.


I'd probably worship at the congregation closest to where I lived.

wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

" Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

As a Protestant, I agree with Ignatius there. That is the Protestant position.

But as a rule, Protestants tend to regard the Word of God more than a particular tiny snippet of some fallible, sinful, errant, limited man as chosen and interpreted by the RC denomination. I know we disagree about that.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[NewToLife]

There was only one church. There's still only one church. Which is why when Protestants confess in the Creed, "we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church," that's actually what we mean.

The testimony of recorded history is very much against you in this assertion. Historically we can see and identify a single Church up until a certain point of history, whether or not the RCC claims to be that church are accurate it is extremely plain that there is a multiplicity of organisations claiming to be churches at this point in time, most of which have no credible claim to being a part of the original identifiable Church. The whole idea of the invisible Church is a construct necessary to justify protestantism and it should be no surprise that it originated precisely in protestantism.

The late Cardinal Newman said something along the lines of 'to study Church history is to cease to be protestant', I found this to be true for myself although my conclusion was that Orthodoxy and not Rome was the true Church.

In the end there are only a couple of credible claims, those of the OO and EO and that of Rome.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Who is speaking in ACTS 15:19? "Wherefore my sentence is,..."

Peter was not a Bishop at the first council my friend. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch (my Church) which started in 34 A.D., The Church of Jerusalem (Zion) was headed by St. James

I'm NOT the historian that many of the posters here are, but from MY limited knowledge, from an INSTITUTIONAL perspective, the OO and EO have a much stronger "claim" to being the earliest. And I tend to agree with the Orthodox priest I spoke to that it was the Catholic Church that "split" from the Orthodox Church in 1054 (making the RCC the original Protestants, LOL!!!). But while I accept the history there, I don't accept an institutional view of Christ and Christianity so it's not the key issue for me.

The Truth that Peter spoke is the Rock on which Christ founded The Church.

I didn't know that's the position of Orthodoxy. Thank you.

No "one" was left in charge. Papal supremacy is an invention of the emperors of Rome, it is not handed down from Christ God.

Again, I'm no historian. And unlike the two of you, I don't have an institutional view of the church. But the impression I got when reading the history agrees with you.

This division between East and West was almost from the start and just widened. It developed into a struggle for power and authority - especially by the West. In the East, there was less emphasis on personal power and more of a sense of community, but in Rome (where POWER rested for the Empire), the Bishop there had a connection to the Emperor and the assumption of centrality. In the West, the ROMAN (not biblical) emphasis on POWER, AUTHORITY, CENTRALITY were just bought - hook, line and sinker. In the West, the denomination became almost a mirror image of the secular Roman Empire (it's the only model they had). So, in the WEST, we had this "Emperor" of the Pope with all that implied - and with GREAT emphasis on power and control and centrality, but in the East there was more of a sense of community and consensus. This - added to the ever widening differences in theology and practice - put the two on a collision course that FINALLY broke with 1054 when the West split off. To ME, the whole concept of the Papacy was largely a political effort to give support to the primacy of the Pope over the other Bishops and especially the East.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Historically we can see and identify a single Church up until a certain point of history, ..."
>A point at which a specific fraction of that church dismembered itself with claims of exclusive authority.

"...whether or not the RCC claims to be that church are accurate it is extremely plain that there is a multiplicity of organisations claiming to be churches at this point in time, most of which have no credible claim to being a part of the original identifiable Church."
>No claim any more or less credible than the self-appointed arbitrators of credibility make themselves, eh?

"The whole idea of the invisible Church is a construct necessary to justify protestantism and it should be no surprise that it originated precisely in protestantism."

Surprise! The "construct" is as old as Elijah being shown by God, that he WASN"T the last & only faithful person in all of Isreal. God had kept for himself a remnant of 7,000 individuals who had not "bent the knee to Baal".

So not all who were of Isreal, the established chosen people, were chosen in the salvific sense, exactly like not all who claim & are claimed as Catholic truly are. Maybe one in 7,000 truly are.

More common in both camps, are people who are indulging in social bonding & religious affection, pretty much totaly unconcerned with spiritual truth that stands on it's own merit, witnessing itself before men.

My dad is a loyal Catholic, but when I asked him if he read the bible, he said "That is for priests."
I listened to an English teacher expound on her Catholic identity, her love of the rituals & traditions, but when I questioned her on Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception, she shrugged her shoulders & said none of that realy made any difference to her, it wasn't what being Catholic meant to her.
She's a neat lady, a good person,... I like her, but I don't bother her with scripture.
I know these are only 2 examples, but in all my years of being Catholic (more or less) , & in all my years since, I've never experienced anything different from Catholics.

Not to elevate Protestants by comparison, either!
Although I've seen more casual interest in scripture among the congregation, error is as abundant as apathy! In fact, most protestant denoms espouse virtualy the same co-operative salvation theory we find in the Catholic canon. Simply ask around, and you will be hard pressed to find a Protestant who can tell you with any substance, the difference between Catholic & Protestant theology.

All this leads me to believe we should have far more tolerance & respect for each other here at this locus of interest than we tend to exhibit.