It's a little different historic perspective, one which you might not be used to.
For instance, you might want to consider the Armenian Church. The Kingdom of Armenia was not part of the Roman Empire, but it declared Christianity to be its official national religion in 300 A.D. (when Christianity was still outlawed in the Empire.) Can anyone honestly imagine that their doctrines were invented by Rome?
If I'm supposed to "listen to the church" (as Jesus says and I quote in the tagline) I first have to FIND the church. It has to be locatable. It has to be identifiable.
That's where "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" --- the four "Marks of the Church" come in: as a way to identify where or what or who is the Church.
You do see the relevance of this, right? It's not a matter of denominationalism. It's a matter of identifying the vital continuities which link any particular self-identified Church with that Church which was being spread by the Apostles in the First Century AD.
Your blindness is astounding! You deny you are referring to institutional ‘church’ then posit that the one org you belong to and the closest affinities to that one are the institutional representatives! And you are totally incapable of seeing your self-contradiction!
Being as your post to me starts with condescending snark, I did not read the rest. If you wish to communicate with me, do so politely.
Your post references a different thread which is against the guidelines of the Religion Forum.
Please ask the RM to remove your post.
Huh?
Logic ain't yer strong point; is it?
Here are seven.
Which one would YOU suggest a person to choose?
I think some of those places you listed would be very surprised at the Roman Catholic Church....especially the part about consuming the blood.