Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system.

The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a cradle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes after hearing the truth. At this point you are a heretic and you'll be judged accordingly. Consider yourself - you have all the knowledge you need about Church history and Scripture but you still decide to do your own thing and come up with your own way to the faith. This is willful rejection of the Church but we always pray for God to bring back the schismatics and heretics to His Body, so hope is not lost.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system.

The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a cradle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes. At this point you are a heretic and you'll be judged accordingly. Consider yourself - you have all the knowledge you need about Church history and Scripture but you still decide to do your own thing and come up with your own way to the faith. This is willful rejection of the Church but we always pray for God to bring back the schismatics and heretics to His Body, so hope is not lost.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system.

The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a craddle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes. At this point you are a heretic nd you'll be judged accordingly.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18.

They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system. The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a craddle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes. At this point you are a heretic nd you'll be judged accordingly.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system. The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system. The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system. The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism and autonomy.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system. The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly.

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system. The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? Silence...

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions (which inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system).

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.

Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.

How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions (which inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - blasphemy)

That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.

I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.

Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.

I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.

No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.