The issue is not Protestant vs. RCC. The issue is what’s true.

What’s true is that St. Ignatius says nothing at all about the Roman Catholic Church. The churches of the second century were referred to as catholic churches or apostolic churches, or even “the church that is one.” The use of “catholic” in such a context is not evidence for a pope in Rome.

As for the books to which you refer, they are on the wrong subject. The subject I brought up was history. The early church fathers say one thing in their writings, and the Roman Catholic Church claims they say something different. That is because they are trying to prove there was a pope with authority over all the western churches prior to the 5th century, which is impossible to prove because it’s not true.

My statement (that the RCC hijacked the church fathers) has nothing to do with doctrine, just fact. The RCC makes up their own pre-Nicene history. I spend a lot of effort on my web site at http://www.christian-history.org giving the real history as found in the early Christian writings.

I say justifying because the cause of division is the flesh. Doctrine is only a justification for giving into our flesh and forming schisms.

However, staying in fellowship with a church that is worldly and whose basis has very little to do with the Gospel is foolish. Even if I don't believe in SOLA Scriptura, I certainly believe in living by the Scriptures and saying what they say. Luther and Calvin tried to do so, and they were kicked out of the Catholic Church. Roman Catholics today keep talking like Luther and Calvin formed schisms on purpose. No, they didn't. They simply tried to teach the Scriptures, and the extremely corrupt, worldly, and money-loving Roman Catholic Church excommunicated them.

The actions of the Catholic Church were so bad, and their rejection of these men so wrong, that whole provinces stood with them.

That's what happened. If the result later was that the Protestants have some false doctrines, that certainly doesn't mean that I, living in Selmer, TN and Auburn, CA, should go back to an organization famous for persecuting Christians, for opposing the availability of the Scriptures, for loving money, and for rampant corruption. Instead, it means that I should reject those false doctrines and return to the apostolic basis for a church, the only church the New Testament knows about, which is the local saints, gathered together as one family.

So that's what I'm doing.

im sure you wont approve my comment either

but who am i but a 21 year old catholic who once questioned his faith too

you know the holy spirit isnt confused but protestants seem to like it that way considering they cant agree on anything yet they boast that they are lead by it.

I have nothing but love for you all

I myself still play with the praise and worship band i did previously

but the truth is out there we just have to submit to it just like the gospel says

We don't exclude people based on doctrine, as true-hearted people eventually get what they need. We exclude people who claim to be disciples of Christ who don't look like him, and refuse to admit it and turn to God to be saved.

We actually have some friends who obviously love God and are doing their best to follow him in the RCC.

They are by far the exception.

In the early church of the apostles dedicated loving followers were the rule, and those that were not were asked to repent, or leave and quit pretending to be set apart for God.

Both the teaching of the RCC, and the overall lifestyle of the vast majority of the followers of Rome have changed so drastically that those simple, holy men of old would not recognize the modern RCC as anything remotely related to them.

Their message (Paul's, Peter's, John's, and the others') would clearly be, "Repent!"