R
ralphinal
Guest
If we do not know the history of the Jewish people, we do not fully understand Jesus and his work.
If we do not fully understand Jesus and his work, we cannot fully understand the Church.
If we do not fully understand the History of the Church, we cannot grasp why we are where we are today.
Some non-Catholics do not understand why Catholics hold to the “who founded your church” line. Granted, that is not always useful in the discussion and can actually work against understanding. However, it is foolish to say that it does not matter at all.
Further, it is illogical to say that just because I cannot trace my denomination back to the upper room, it does not prove that I am not following historic Christianity. If you were a part of the same form, you should be able to trace it back.
Historical reivisonism is also a problem. Men who see that they are not in historic Christianity seek to add in their faith system, or make it seem like they were destroyed by the opposing branch.
Would anyone disagree?
If we do not fully understand Jesus and his work, we cannot fully understand the Church.
If we do not fully understand the History of the Church, we cannot grasp why we are where we are today.
Some non-Catholics do not understand why Catholics hold to the “who founded your church” line. Granted, that is not always useful in the discussion and can actually work against understanding. However, it is foolish to say that it does not matter at all.
Further, it is illogical to say that just because I cannot trace my denomination back to the upper room, it does not prove that I am not following historic Christianity. If you were a part of the same form, you should be able to trace it back.
Historical reivisonism is also a problem. Men who see that they are not in historic Christianity seek to add in their faith system, or make it seem like they were destroyed by the opposing branch.
Would anyone disagree?