Your post in response to my verbal poke is just. The problem I saw was that you were arguing unity based on the singleness of the Pope of Rome in the post to which I replied.
Unless a protestant becomes convinced of the authority of the ancient Church it is unlikely that he will come to accept either the Latin or the Greek approach to ecclesiology, and arguing the case from the specifically Latin position, to which a protestant is certain to be resistant for obvious historical reasons, is less likely to move him than staying close to the founding of the Church where we can speak with one voice. Once you use the papacy as the locus of unity, rather than the Apostolic Faith, you, indeed lose help from the East, since we are bound to uphold our own understanding of ecclesiology.
Speaking of firstborn... ;)
I heard a song today that made me wonder...
About the plagues and Passover and whether this has any application to the argument a while back over firstborn:
When the "firstborn" of Egypt died and the "firstborn" of Israel were spared, did this only apply to the firstborn with siblings?
I understand. But in Catholic theology, we do not have to choose between the papacy and the Apostolic Faith as the loci of unity. My original point to Blogger (in 2756) was that if we go by our own personal interpretation of Scripture we end up with division upon division. And I think that is also true if we each go by our own determination of the "Apostolic Faith". Without a living authoritative judge of what is the "Apostolic Faith", views will be all over the map.
-A8