Alright and that has yet to be demonstrated in material reality. Pseudo-histories don't really count.
Well, I wasn't including any Protestant churches in that comment. They obviously do not rely upon the theory that says "whatever was, must be right."
That's not really what I was saying and is more or less bastardizing my point but ok.
The point was simply that age does not confer correctness.
I never really said it did. I believe I said that archaeological evidences combined with ecumenical councils, historically observed Christian traditions, and so on offer a shortcut to a proper understanding of Christianity as a hole, a short cut. Combined with this of course the teachings of the Church by Christ, his apostles, their rightful successors/early Church Fathers, and so on.
These aren't fairy tales, if you read the Bible, study history, see our Churches, recognize the geographic locations of our patriarchates, you can see a direct connection to the Apostles and thus a direct connection to our Lord Jesus. It's not merely age, it's the whole picture.
Perhaps I should have clarified my posts. I mean, whom comprised the pentarchy? Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Guess who all stayed together after Rome decided to be a diva? Guess what title they ultimately took? It rhymes with Mortomox.
Then what happened? Martin Luthor started shouting at clouds and indulgence peddlers and poof, Protestantism. Logically, even from this superficial and simplistic tracing of Christian history, you could make a few assumptions. Then when you get into actual theology, christology, and so on, it really only seems to reinforce things.
And that's quite aside from whether or not the Orthodox Eastern churches (or any of the other Catholic jurisdictions) actually do adhere to the faith and practices of the Apostolic Church. As noted by another poster, that's an easy claim to make but not an easy one to substantiate.
Actually, it is pretty easy.
