When someone points out that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years
old, it is generally meant to point out that A) our Church is there at
the beginning and B) yours is not.
Like Paul, ??
the catholic systen we place a lot of
importance on the idea of legitimate apostolic succession.
according to our own facts developed by Constantine and his successors
2 Timothy 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage:
1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him,
2. Paul
himself,
3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple
, 4. Those whom Timothy
would disciple, and
5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.
Age doesn’t equate to infallibility, nor does the idea that those in the hierarchy, tracing some ambiguous lineal “descent” from Paul, guarantee continuity when, in reality, there has been at least as much divergence between Popes through the centuries as there has been between Protestant sects since the Reformation.
Quote:
| You are correct. Many religions are older than Christianity, and that does not make them infallible. | Therefore, Apostolic Succession, not age, is important. Of course, your church has neither. |
As aforementioned, age and Apostolic Succession are only as significant as the Catholic Church believes them to be – it’s equivalent to citing your own works in an academic paper.
Again, superficial facets of the Catholic Church, outside of scripture, that the Church constantly relies upon to claims it’s the True Church. I prefer to defer as closely as possible to the word of God in spiritual matters, not “church history and tradition”, and so Biblical sources trump the baggage that Catholics attach to the faith.
Quote:
| The Catholic Church is infallible. It is not perfect. If you learn the difference, you will have done well. |
As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God – and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status – assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.
Quote:
| Yes, it is very simple. And not biblical. You see, Jesus did not tell us to take our disagreements to the “churches” because He only promised to build one Church. Atheling, if you really stop and think about what you just said, I think you will come to the realization that you have just made one of the strongest arguments possible for Catholicism. The multiplicity of the non-Catholic denominations was the  moment that brought my best friend back into the Church after a long evangelical walkabout. |
and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case.
Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case.
That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church.
I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?
Today, 12:56 pm 
Re: Question for all protestants
I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less since your Church has neither.
