That's within the realm of possibility, and therefore nothing to argue against. Of course there are Mennonites who believe that their church organization is the form of the earliest Christians, with bishop being a local church office, not a suzerain of a larger territory encompassing many churches. They may be right. Its hard to know, an…
That's within the realm of possibility, and therefore nothing to argue against. Of course there are Mennonites who believe that their church organization is the form of the earliest Christians, with bishop being a local church office, not a suzerain of a larger territory encompassing many churches. They may be right. Its hard to know, and so many have a vested interest in insisting that what they do now is the right way.
That's within the realm of possibility, and therefore nothing to argue against. Of course there are Mennonites who believe that their church organization is the form of the earliest Christians, with bishop being a local church office, not a suzerain of a larger territory encompassing many churches. They may be right. Its hard to know, and so many have a vested interest in insisting that what they do now is the right way.
The way people argue about what the "Tradition really says" and how the "Church really was" makes me think of a Monty Python skit.
You should not be a Catholic then, Eastern or otherwise. Rosenberg has an excuse -- he's a Protestant.
Well, fortunately you're not the arbiter of that, are you? Oh it worries me so that I don't live up to your standard of being a Catholic. . . .
Don't care one way or another, personally. I'm just not a fan of people willfully muddying the waters.
An axiomatic disagreement, as I said.