Immaculate Conception

[Constantine the Sinner]

AMEN! That is what I have been saying.
I wonder why it took so long for anyone to agree with me as It is what the Scriptures actually say.

Acts 1:14 to me is as you said....."a fact" that the children were grouped separately is YOUR OPINION.......
" They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

It is a statement of fact that Mary had children which were half siblings of Jesus which is THE FACT presented. How else could it have been said ????

I understand your argument about my reading. However the real fact is just as simple. The words read existed 2000 years ago when they were written. They existed 1500 years ago when the Catholic church canonized the Bible. Age ha nothing to do with truth. Truth is true whether it is 1 day old or 1 million years old.

I would also disagree that my doctrines change. #1.....I do not have any doctrines what so ever.

Would you please post the comment # where I have changed a Bible doctrine???????

No, nowhere in that verse is it remotely indicated Christ's siblings are Mary's children; in fact, they are distinctly referred to as his siblings despite their grammatical proximity to Mary, which would make it more intuitive to refer to them as her sons, or to place her after them and say, "and Mary their mother".

I would say Truth coming from the Spirit of Truth which Christ gave to us, doesn't go dormant and appear over a thousand years later. The Spirit of Truth doesn't need to be "rediscovered", He was always there, guiding the Church. He has the Church by the hand. To say He vanished or stopped guiding the Church since 1900 years ago, and then suddenly was rediscovered by a bunch of sects who don't even have an agreed upon dogma, makes zero sense to me. Mary as ever virgin was something mentioned and known in writings since even before the Church was legalized, and I give much more precedent to ancient, unchanging readings, than ones that twist and turn with the wind. Protestantism is ideologically biased against celibacy these days (an understandable reaction to Catholicism's marginalization of marriage, but still a problem nonetheless). Many go so far as to say pastors must be married--by this rule, Paul and Christ couldn't be pastors! And both Paul and Christ extolled celibacy, Paul going so far as to say it made it so you could devote more to God. Protestants effectively have excised the words on celibacy from the New Testament, and it is out of this perversion that the new doctrine of Mary as not celibate comes from, it springs from an attack on the holiness of celibacy; it is a new reading that has no precedent. To me, it is no more valid than the readings which twist the New Testament to endorse homosexuality (and there are many such readings). You can twist the Bible to mean whatever you want, satan did when he was tempting Christ. What makes a reading true is not based on whether or not it is supported by the "latest scholarship" (which often denies Christ anyway), it is based on whether or not the reading has a continuous line of consistency to ancient times, or is at least isn't in contradiction with such readings; because that is the only way to see if the reading accords with the Spirit of Truth, because Christ promised the Spirit of Truth would stay with us and guide us.

 

[Major1]

No, nowhere in that verse is it remotely indicated Christ's siblings are Mary's children; in fact, they are distinctly referred to as his siblings despite their grammatical proximity to Mary, which would make it more intuitive to refer to them as her sons, or to place her after them and say, "and Mary their mother".

I would say Truth coming from the Spirit of Truth which Christ gave to us, doesn't go dormant and appear over a thousand years later. The Spirit of Truth doesn't need to be "rediscovered", He was always there, guiding the Church. He has the Church by the hand. To say He vanished or stopped guiding the Church since 1900 years ago, and then suddenly was rediscovered by a bunch of sects who don't even have an agreed upon dogma, makes zero sense to me. Mary as ever virgin was something mentioned and known in writings since even before the Church was legalized, and I give much more precedent to ancient, unchanging readings, than ones that twist and turn with the wind. Protestantism is ideologically biased against celibacy these days (an understandable reaction to Catholicism's marginalization of marriage, but still a problem nonetheless). Many go so far as to say pastors must be married--by this rule, Paul and Christ couldn't be pastors! And both Paul and Christ extolled celibacy, Paul going so far as to say it made it so you could devote more to God. Protestants effectively have excised the words on celibacy from the New Testament, and it is out of this perversion that the new doctrine of Mary as not celibate comes from, it springs from an attack on the holiness of celibacy; it is a new reading that has no precedent. To me, it is no more valid than the readings which twist the New Testament to endorse homosexuality (and there are many such readings). You can twist the Bible to mean whatever you want, satan did when he was tempting Christ. What makes a reading true is not based on whether or not it is supported by the "latest scholarship" (which often denies Christ anyway), it is based on whether or not the reading has a continuous line of consistency to ancient times, or is at least isn't in contradiction with such readings; because that is the only way to see if the reading accords with the Spirit of Truth, because Christ promised the Spirit of Truth would stay with us and guide us.

Well , I can only say that I disagree with you. I see no reason to go on like this as it is clear your understanding is not able to accept what the Scriptures actually do say.

Be well and may the Lord bless you.

 

[Major1]

What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?

This is an official site representing an official Protestant ministry.


No Orthodox church teaches that, no. No official Orthodox site suggests that, no.

And what in that web site do you find UN- Biblical?

It is a protestant website but it only represents the person who owns that site just as there are hundreds of Catholic web sites in the same position.
That website does not speak for ALL protestant denominations any more that you speak for ALL Orthodox faiths.

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

 

[All4Christ]

...any more that you speak for ALL Orthodox faiths.

Unlike the Protestant denominations, the Orthodox Church has one set of dogmas, doctrines, etc. (There are some teachings where we can have differing opinions, but not the dogmas or doctrines). There also is one Orthodox Church (or faith), not many (with the exception of the Coptic Orthodox Church.). Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Orthodox Church of America, etc are just jurisdictions- not different Orthodox faiths with different beliefs.

I agree though that there is a wide range of beliefs within the Protestant denominations.

 

[Albion]

Why would it matter if a particular denomination is involved, if you all identify as One Church? .

NONE of us identify as one church.

 

[Albion]

What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?

This is an official site representing an official Protestant ministry.

No, it is not...and the website clearly explains that.

 

[Albion]

Unlike the Protestant denominations, the Orthodox Church has one set of dogmas, doctrines, etc. (There are some teachings where we can have differing opinions, but not the dogmas or doctrines). There also is one Orthodox Church (or faith), not many (with the exception of the Coptic Orthodox Church.). Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Orthodox Church of America, etc are just jurisdictions- not different Orthodox faiths with different beliefs.

So what would the parallel among Protestants be? Would it be Methodist, Baptist, Anglican, Christian Reformed, etc.? Certainly not. Those are different denominations and related to each other only in the loose sense of all being Protestant.

By contrast, your church is Catholic, along with the Roman Church, the Coptic, the Nestorian, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some others. You simply cannot compare hundreds of different denominations to yours all by itself, so to be able to say that "all those" are divided but your church is not.

I truly do hope this is clear now so that we can get on to discussing something more important.

 

[All4Christ]

So what would the parallel among Protestants be? Would it be Methodist, Baptist, Anglican, Christian Reformed, etc.? Certainly not. Those are different denominations and related to each other only in the loose sense of all being Protestant.

By contrast, your church is Catholic, along with the Roman Church, the Coptic, the Nestorian, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some others. You simply cannot compare hundreds of different denominations to yours all by itself, so to be able to say that "all those" are divided but your church is not.

I truly do hope this is clear now so that we can get on to discussing something more important.

I don't know why you always call us a Catholic Church. We are not all the "Catholic Churches".

All I said was that he can't say Orthodox faiths and assume that equals the equivalent of the categorization of Protestant...and I agreed that one denomination's beliefs is not the authoritative for them all - as there are many variations of faith in the Protestant denominations. Because of my background - I know, for example, an Assemblies of God doctrine is not remotely authoritative for an Anglican Church...which is obvious I'm sure to you.

 

[Albion]

I don't know why you always call us a Catholic Church. We are not all the "Catholic Churches".

Theologically speaking, Orthodoxy is Catholic. Some churches are classified as Catholic and some are classified as Protestant. (and a few are called cults for reasons we need not go into here).

It's no more confusing than dividing all Christian denominations into ones claiming Apostolic Succession vs. ones that disavow it. Or liturgical churches vs. non-liturgical ones. Except that it's much better a way of classifying.

Catholic refers to a certain package of beliefs and Protestant means something similar, and almost every denomination of communion can be classified as one or the other--just as the US government did with all servicemen until recently and many other religious catalogers still do.

And there's no reason to be offended by it, either. I certainly do not feel misrepresented if someone says that I'm a Protestant and so is Billy Graham. We are...but we disagree on a lot. Similarly, you are a Catholic (but not a Roman Catholic) and so is the Pope. It doesn't mean that you and he believe 100% the same, but both of you have a lot in common that Billy Graham and I don't share with either of you.

 

[All4Christ]

Theologically speaking, Orthodoxy is Catholic. Some churches are classified as Catholic and some are classified as Protestant. (and a few are called cults for reasons we need not go into here).

It's no more confusing than dividing all Christian denominations into ones claiming Apostolic Succession vs. ones that disavow it. Or liturgical churches vs. non-liturgical ones. Except that it's much better a way of classifying.

Catholic refers to a certain package of beliefs and Protestant means something similar, and almost every denomination of communion can be classified as one or the other--just as the US government did with all servicemen until recently and many other religious catalogers still do.

And there's no reason to be offended by it, either. I certainly do not feel misrepresented if someone says that I'm a Protestant and so is Billy Graham. We are...but we disagree on a lot. Similarly, you are a Catholic (but not a Roman Catholic) and so is the Pope. It doesn't mean that you and he believe 100% the same, but both of you have a lot in common that Billy Graham and I don't share with either of you.

Honestly, you are the first person I have heard that from. I haven't heard anyone else - especially anyone from one of the churches represented in Traditional Theology - make that categorization.

Honestly, I don't even think the Anglican Church is Protestant. At least - I've always seen it separate when churches are categorized, in church history and when talking to most Anglicans.

 

[Albion]

Having read your post above, I checked with a search engine. In seconds, I found dozens of articles that dealt with the division in one way or another. Here's just one that takes up the matter.

Major Branches of Religions

Many people want to adjust the two-fold system somewhat and that complicates the matter, but take a look at this (from the above link):

"Catholic: Includes Old Catholic, Aglipayan (Philipines), Uniate, in addition to the Catholic Church headquartered at the Vatican. Occasionally "Catholic" is used, as in the table above, to refer to a branch of Christianity that includes the Catholic Church headquartered at the Vatican, as well as relatively recent off-shoots that still consider themselves Catholic, such as the Old Catholic churches. Certainly it also includes non-Latin Rite Catholic churches such as Uniates, Greek Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronites, etc., all of which are in full papal communion and regarded as part of the same religious body as the "Roman Catholic" church. The fact that there are non-Latin Rite Catholics such as these is one of the reasons that many Catholics do not like the term "Roman Catholic Church" as a name for their church. While "Roman Catholic" has long been used without any offense intended, it is increasingly disliked by some members of the Vatican-based Catholic Church, and in nearly every place on this web site that this church is mentioned, the term "Catholic Church" is used. "Roman" is left off, as both inaccurate and potentially objectionable. On other pages, the term "Catholics" by itself refers to members of the Vatican-based Catholic Church, whether they be Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Uniates, Coptic Catholics, etc.

This is not the only possible usage of the capitalized term "Catholic." Adherents.com uses the term "Catholic" in essentially the same way that most contemporary sociological literature uses it. In studies of the general population, distinctions between Latin Rite Catholics and other Catholics are ignored. Also, Episcopalians are generally grouped with Protestants (or, in studies with more specificity, Liberal Protestants)."

...........................................................................................................
And here's a section from the Wikipedia article, Catholicism:


"In Roman Catholicism, the term "catholic" is understood as to cover those who recognize and are in good standing with the Magisterium. The sense given to the word by those who use it to distinguish their position from a Calvinistic or Puritan form of Protestantism. It is then meaningful to attempt to draw up a list of common characteristic beliefs and practices of Catholicism not commonly held by those merely claiming spiritual descent. The Roman Catholic Church includes the 23 rites who recognize the Magisterium. Although they do not recognize the Magisterium, the various Churches of Eastern Christianity, the Old Catholic Church, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, and at least some of the "independent Catholic Churches" may understand some of the biblical basis for the beliefs and practices that are said to be "Catholic", which include:

• Direct and continuous organizational descent from the one Church founded by Jesus[Matthew 16:18]
• Belief that Jesus Christ is Divine, a doctrine officially clarified in the First Council of Nicaea and expressed in the Nicene Creed.
• Belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the belief that Christ is made manifest in the elements of Holy Communion.[19][20]
• Possession of the "threefold ordained ministry" of Bishops, priests and Deacons.
• All ministers are ordained by, and subject to, Bishops, who pass down sacramental authority by the "laying-on of hands", having themselves been ordained in a direct line of succession from the Apostles (see Apostolic succession).
• Belief that the Church is the vessel and deposit of the fullness of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles from which the Scriptures were formed. This teaching is preserved in both written scripture and in unwritten tradition, neither being independent of the other.
• A belief in the necessity and efficacy of sacraments.
• Liturgical and personal use of the Sign of the Cross[21]
• The use of sacred images, candles, vestments and music, and often incense and water, in worship.
• Observation of the Christian liturgical year.[22]
• Veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos (i.e., "God-bearer" or "Mother of God", a title that became "Catholic" only after the Nicene Council, with the Council of Ephesus in 431), but a rejection of her worship[23]
• Belief in the Communion of Saints.
• The use of prayer for the dead.[24]"

 

[Danthemailman]

The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22). So ALL have sinned (including Mary) and come short of the glory of God (except Jesus).

Luke 1:46 - And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary needed a Savior just like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that Mary was conceived without sin. So, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is neither Biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the Biblical concept of the virgin birth.

If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. So how could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was not sinless? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great grandmother and so on. So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, but it does not the immaculate conception of Mary.

 

[All4Christ]

Having read your post above, I checked with a search engine. In seconds, I found dozens of articles that dealt with the division in one way or another. Here's just one that takes up the matter.

Major Branches of Religions

Many people want to adjust the two-fold system somewhat and that complicates the matter, but take a look at this (from the above link):

"Catholic: Includes Old Catholic, Aglipayan (Philipines), Uniate, in addition to the Catholic Church headquartered at the Vatican. Occasionally "Catholic" is used, as in the table above, to refer to a branch of Christianity that includes the Catholic Church headquartered at the Vatican, as well as relatively recent off-shoots that still consider themselves Catholic, such as the Old Catholic churches. Certainly it also includes non-Latin Rite Catholic churches such as Uniates, Greek Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronites, etc., all of which are in full papal communion and regarded as part of the same religious body as the "Roman Catholic" church. The fact that there are non-Latin Rite Catholics such as these is one of the reasons that many Catholics do not like the term "Roman Catholic Church" as a name for their church. While "Roman Catholic" has long been used without any offense intended, it is increasingly disliked by some members of the Vatican-based Catholic Church, and in nearly every place on this web site that this church is mentioned, the term "Catholic Church" is used. "Roman" is left off, as both inaccurate and potentially objectionable. On other pages, the term "Catholics" by itself refers to members of the Vatican-based Catholic Church, whether they be Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Uniates, Coptic Catholics, etc.

This is not the only possible usage of the capitalized term "Catholic." Adherents.com uses the term "Catholic" in essentially the same way that most contemporary sociological literature uses it. In studies of the general population, distinctions between Latin Rite Catholics and other Catholics are ignored. Also, Episcopalians are generally grouped with Protestants (or, in studies with more specificity, Liberal Protestants)."

...........................................................................................................
And here's a section from the Wikipedia article, Catholicism:


"In Roman Catholicism, the term "catholic" is understood as to cover those who recognize and are in good standing with the Magisterium. The sense given to the word by those who use it to distinguish their position from a Calvinistic or Puritan form of Protestantism. It is then meaningful to attempt to draw up a list of common characteristic beliefs and practices of Catholicism not commonly held by those merely claiming spiritual descent. The Roman Catholic Church includes the 23 rites who recognize the Magisterium. Although they do not recognize the Magisterium, the various Churches of Eastern Christianity, the Old Catholic Church, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, and at least some of the "independent Catholic Churches" may understand some of the biblical basis for the beliefs and practices that are said to be "Catholic", which include:

• Direct and continuous organizational descent from the one Church founded by Jesus[Matthew 16:18]
• Belief that Jesus Christ is Divine, a doctrine officially clarified in the First Council of Nicaea and expressed in the Nicene Creed.
• Belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the belief that Christ is made manifest in the elements of Holy Communion.[19][20]
• Possession of the "threefold ordained ministry" of Bishops, priests and Deacons.
• All ministers are ordained by, and subject to, Bishops, who pass down sacramental authority by the "laying-on of hands", having themselves been ordained in a direct line of succession from the Apostles (see Apostolic succession).
• Belief that the Church is the vessel and deposit of the fullness of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles from which the Scriptures were formed. This teaching is preserved in both written scripture and in unwritten tradition, neither being independent of the other.
• A belief in the necessity and efficacy of sacraments.
• Liturgical and personal use of the Sign of the Cross[21]
• The use of sacred images, candles, vestments and music, and often incense and water, in worship.
• Observation of the Christian liturgical year.[22]
• Veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos (i.e., "God-bearer" or "Mother of God", a title that became "Catholic" only after the Nicene Council, with the Council of Ephesus in 431), but a rejection of her worship[23]
• Belief in the Communion of Saints.
• The use of prayer for the dead.[24]"

Read what you quoted above. There are multiple Catholic Churches, including a Byzantine rite - but they are all in communion with the Pope. And honestly, it doesn't matter if the Catholic Church considers us to be "catholic". Seriously- reread what you posted. A small section states that

The website you linked to has a much more accurate grouping of the traditional Christian branches:

Catholic
Protestant
Other Christians
Orthodox
Anglicans

Of course this still doesn't cover everything- but it is much more accurate than Protestant and Catholic. Three major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) is also much more common than Protestant vs Catholic.

I've also been googling branches of Christianity, or Catholic Churches, groups of Christians Churches - and have consistently found more than 2 categories of churches - and I haven't seen them include Orthodox in the Catholic churches.


ETA: Our official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church - but using that is often confusing, since the Catholics Church in communion with the Patriarch of Rome is already a set group of Churches - including all the ones you listed above. They are all part of the same branch of Christianity...Catholicism. Similarly, Protestants are all from the same branch of Christianity, just as Orthodox Christians are from the same branch. It is a critical point when discussing theology and comparing them. The only exception I see theologically-speaking are the UGCC churches since they are Orthodox in beliefs, albeit with a few major differences.

Yes, you can group Churches by beliefs. The question becomes- what makes the Protestant Church Protestant? The results of a movement? Or a combination of that and its roots? I believe it is a combination. (You can see that by the Western slant of Protestant theology...which is due to the origin of the movement).

Often when categorizing beliefs, I prefer Eastern vs Western thought - with Western covering two sections - Protestant and Catholic. The Eastern Church covers Eastern Orthodoxy (including the Western rite Orthodox, since they conform to Eastern Orthodox beliefs) and the Coptic Church, as well the small offshoots such as Old Calendarists.

 

[Albion]

Read what you quoted above. There are multiple Catholic Churches, including a Byzantine rite - but they are all in communion with the Pope.

I made no mention of them, and they weren't part of the issue.

I also said that some people prefer slightly different classifications, including the Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox-Anglican one, but it remains the case that the Catholic vs Protestant one has been the most commonly used.

 

[All4Christ]

I made no mention of them, and they weren't part of the issue.

I also said that some people prefer slightly different classifications, including the Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox-Anglican one, but it remains the case that the Catholic vs Protestant one has been the most commonly used.

Ok. We can agree to disagree. In theological discussions and historical studies, I've heard the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican much more often. Frequently, when people use Catholic vs Protestant- they think that Orthodox Christians are part of the Communion of Catholic Churches. Most others I know who understand that we are not part of the Catholic Church use the three or four branch model.

 

[Albion]

Ok. We can agree to disagree. In theological discussions and historical studies, I've heard the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican much more often. Often when people use Catholic vs Protestant- they think hat Orthodox Christians are part of the Communion of Catholic Churches. Most others I know use the three or four branch model.

They are Catholic. They are Catholic in that they share with Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, and other Catholics the basic beliefs and practices that are characteristic of Catholic theology but which Protestants generally have rejected. Some information along those lines was included in the link I referred to a few posts back.

But yes, some people prefer to be more specific and separate some Catholics from others and also to do the same with the Protestants. That doesn't mean that those who use the older and simpler model of Catholic vs Protestant are wrong about it.

As I noted in earlier discussions, the Eastern Orthodox parish church that is nearest my own home has a big sign out front that proclaims that it is "St. (name) Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church," so I don't see that this linguistic issue should be any big deal...unless, of course, there is an attempt to say that the Eastern Orthodox and the Church of Rome are the same, interchangeable, or identical. I certainly would not do that.

 

[All4Christ]

They are Catholic. They are Catholic in that they share with Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, and other Catholics the basic beliefs and practices that are characteristic of Catholic theology but which Protestants generally have rejected. But of course, some people prefer to be more specific and separate some Catholics from others and also to do the same with the Protestants. That doesn't mean that those who use the older and simpler model of Catholic vs Protestant are wrong about it.

Many things the original Protestants rejected are Roman Catholic beliefs. The things Luther rejected often were things we often reject. Perhaps it is used frequently in the west - but it often is due to them not considering Orthodox due to prevalence in the population or thinking we are part of the Catholic Church.


-----

Direct and continuous organizational descent from the one Church founded by Jesus[Matthew 16:18]

• Belief that Jesus Christ is Divine, a doctrine officially clarified in the First Council of Nicaea and expressed in the Nicene Creed.
• Belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the belief that Christ is made manifest in the elements of Holy Communion.[19][20]
• Possession of the "threefold ordained ministry" of Bishops, priests and Deacons.
• All ministers are ordained by, and subject to, Bishops, who pass down sacramental authority by the "laying-on of hands", having themselves been ordained in a direct line of succession from the Apostles (see Apostolic succession).
• Belief that the Church is the vessel and deposit of the fullness of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles from which the Scriptures were formed. This teaching is preserved in both written scripture and in unwritten tradition, neither being independent of the other.
• A belief in the necessity and efficacy of sacraments.
• Liturgical and personal use of the Sign of the Cross[21]
• The use of sacred images, candles, vestments and music, and often incense and water, in worship.
• Observation of the Christian liturgical year.[22]
• Veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos (i.e., "God-bearer" or "Mother of God", a title that became "Catholic" only after the Nicene Council, with the Council of Ephesus in 431), but a rejection of her worship[23]
• Belief in the Communion of Saints.
• The use of prayer for the dead.[24]"

FTR, in regards to the characteristic beliefs you say the Catholic Churches hold (and that the Protestants generally rejected), the original Protestants agreed with all the bolded beliefs.

 

[All4Christ]

...unless, of course, there is an attempt to say that the Eastern Orthodox and the Church of Rome are the same, interchangeable, or identical. I certainly would not do that.

While I know you know they are different- I encounter this all the time on Christian Forums, which is one reason I have a strong opinion about it.

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[Albion]

That's not actually correct to say. Most of the early Reformers did not support Apostolic Succession, for instance, or prayer for the dead, or the threefold ordained ministry. However, there's no argument that Protestant Christianity does agree with Catholic Christianity on many things.