Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
ROTFLMAO!!! What a magnificent rant! I can almost envision one standing before us, waxing apoplectic, wild-eyed with a bit of white spittle at the corners of one’s mouth - BRAVO!!
Still, when it’s all said and done, it is much ado about nothing ~ tearing the vestments, throwing dirt in the air, and appealing to authority. It wound up a little repetitive in that...
And in that, an appeal to authority is what lands flat, the most of all. The Roman religion is to faith as global warming is to science. When FReepers start believing lettered men of science, perhaps one would have better luck getting them to believe lettered men of theology. But by then, that would be other people than those that you rail against now...
All I have ever asked for from y’all is proof - When suspension of disbelief meets cognitive dissonance, all that will do is proof. And that is the one thing y’all cannot provide.
But enough of all that - Today is the Sabbath Day - That much can be proven.
Shabbat Shalom.
Which is more fantasy, ignoring what i have already shown you to the contrary. Catholic Church Fathers and later theologians disagreed on which texts were Scripture proper, as did Luther with their support, and which scholarly disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Tren t, which provided the first "infallible" indisputable canon for RCs (even the EOs is not exactly the same), thus Jerome knew what to include, and rejected the apocryphal books as Scripture proper, though like Luther's Bible, they were included in most of the Vulgates.
And heresies began long before Prots reproved Cath heresies, and in fact at one time Arians were the majority church. Moreover, the basis for what constitutes heresy is not the presumed veracity of the historical magisterium, which considered the sect of the Nazarenes to be such, but the weight of Scriptural substantiation, in the light of which Rome is manifestly heretical* .
Moreover, as stated before, the Catholic intellectual tradition, The polemical premise of which is perverse.
DANIEL1212 can’t seem to understand the paradox of the cross. Catholics come upon the visible Crucifix in every Catholic Church. Christ the Savior of the World shorn of his glory, a crown of thorns on his head, appearing powerless as being nailed to a cross, appearing destitute and humiliated by being stripped of his garments, and helpless to the point His thirst is quenched with vinegar. We trace this paradox of the cross in our Good Friday “Way of the Cross.” Even better I’d suggest you pick up a deep thinking read such as “Journey of a Soul,” by St. John of the Cross.
Actually, I’d suggest yourself up and read what i said, and interact with that, rather than avoiding the fact that "not many wise" applies to far more than the immediate context, but to how the church began.
Which, as shown you but ignored, is contrary to your premise that the learned lettered establish right judgment vs the common people, as the church began is dissent from those who were learned lettered, and sneered at the blue collar soldiers who found, "Never man spake like this man," saying, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49) 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected, who established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) manifestly treating Scripture as supreme standard (Mk. for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As it is abundantly evidenced to be.
Perhaps BOATBUMS knows the hearts, minds, and souls of Catholic clergy. But the whole idea of being Catholic is adherence to the Credo and the Catholic Catechism. We recite as our belief the Credo at every Catholic Mass...make no mistake Catholics are defined by their formal Catechistic beliefs.
Once again a RC is fantasizing theory as fact. The fact is that under the Roman rubric of following the pastors as docile sheep, being Catholic is what ever the present leadership manifests they understand this to be.
Which, while in times past could require a RC to exterminate all the non-Catholic Prots from the land, today can include them being called "Catholic," while it clearly does include even proabortion/sodomite/Muslim pols, and the majority of RCs, as such are treated as members in life and in death.
They are your brethren, as are baptized Prots in general - if separated" - which cannot reject as being so unless in principle you become like a Prot and hold what RC teaching is based on your judgement of evidence, and also reject the Biblical basis for the evidence of what one really believes, which is by what they do and effect, not merely profess.
after whom colleges and universities have been named, encourages the pursuit of truth on God’s Word against a world of heretics.
Do you really want us to example what Catholic universities and intellectualism teach overall?
Catholicism hasn’t gone down the hellhole of Protestantism where every Jack and Jill is allowed to crack open the pages of the Bible and supply us “their” own definitive interpretation of God’s Word...And so did David Koresh...that must of necessity flow from a denial of Petrine authority.
No, they can just open the plethora of pages of RC teaching and supply us “their” own interpretation of the Word of Rome. But for one who exalts intellectual prowess you sure do example logical fallacies and erroneous reasoning and poor polemics. Here, the mere fact that souls can disagree on what their authoritative reference means does mean they hold themselves as being a pope, as they cannot claim a unique charism of ensured veracity. Those who do are found in cults, which a favorite RC example David Koresh (among others) basically did. That is the company you chose.
Nor does it negate Scripture from being supremely authoritative and require a pope. Instead, while personal interpretation cannot be avoided, unless perhaps the command and controlled is so intensive that members are like Watchtower clones (and which org is more unified than RCs), yet the magisterial office is not contrary to SS (with me you are not contending with one rejects any ecclesiastical authority).
As Westminster states,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
That some ignore this does not negate its validity, but under Scripture being supreme, which is contrary to the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, with what that office says being the supreme authority on Truth. If you want to contend that magisterial infallibility is essential for authority, and to ascertain which writings and men are of God, then go ahead. Just let me know.
The real cause of heresy is usually that of souls presuming a level of personal veracity above that which is written, thus cults share tyhe same basic model as Rome, while those who exalt Scripture the most as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most unified group in core beliefs. Meanwhile, as said, the problem with looking to men as supreme, and not seeking to ascertain the veracity of Truth claims by examination of unchanging Scripture as supreme (which is what you basically attack) is that insofar as leadership goes South, so do the followers. And thus you have the
mess prior to the Reformation. And the RC disparity today. .
And the reality (versus RC fantasy) is that the Ted Kennedy RCs will be far more at home in a typical RC church than a corresponding liberal would be in a typical evangelical church for long. And RCs catch on quite quickly that conservative statements are a paper tiger, or need not mean what they seem to most plainly say, and are to look to leadership for their meaning. Here is one the defines EENS for the modern RC: Cardinal O’Malley, female Methodist pastor team up on ritual pastor team up on ritual And the pope: Pope Francis' First Papal High Five with US Televangelists ...
When reference response citations are made, such as to eminent Protestant theologians who after extensive study and teaching have converted to Catholicism, they are dismissed out of hand without so much a seven an effort to read their reasons. The same goes when reference is made to scriptural foundation for Catholic doctrine and traditions.
Wrong: Both have been examined and refuted, the latter of which especially. e. Just search my replies, by God's grace, for refutations to attempted claims for scriptural foundation for distinctive Catholic doctrine and traditions Likewise in another post i intend to comment on Beckwith's testimony by .
after all the early Church fathers displayed a remarkable intransigence in insisting that only the books they CHOSE, ASSEMBLED, and INTERPRETED them they way they did using the sacred oral tradition as a verifier source is the true Word of God.
And disagreed with each other, as EOs significantly do today (and the unity in basic beliefs among those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired authoritative and accurate word of God is superior to the fruit of Rome), and Rome judges the "church fathers" (they are not) more than they do her, as their opinions are not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is.
born-again Wheaton-educated Bible scholar Dr. David Anders
Once again, your premise of intellectualism as superior in judgment is plainly contrary to Scripture, and upon which specious premise the church would be rendered invalid. And Anders is welcome to try to debate here.
after all is said and done Protestantism is a mass of sheer rot
Such honest feelings toward what birthed your brethren! Or are you part of a SSPX type sect, or perhaps more consistent, with the SSPV? But consistent with exalting church fathers which RCs invoke in their as the pseudo-reliance upon such, your this exaltation and reliance upon certain intellectual converts as examples to follow bring you into conflict with them. For as shown you, one of the very converts you sets forth as an example of right judgment stated - after he rejoined the Roman Church.
There is much that I learned as a Protestant evangelical that has left an indelible mark on me and formed the person I am today. For that reason, it accompanies me back to the Church.
For instance, because Protestant evangelicals accept much of the Great Tradition that Catholics take for granted — such as the Catholic creeds and the inspiration of Scripture — but without recourse to the Church’s authority, they have produced important and significant works in systematic theology and philosophical theology.
Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the Church Fathers that developed the catholic creeds as well as the Church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s Word.
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world. For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith.
the fact that many Catholic parishes do not offer the expository preaching and theological teaching to their members found in the best Protestant churches should force Catholics to critically reflect on whether they are adequately evangelizing and equipping their own people to enter a world hostile to the Christian worldview. - Francis Beckwith http://www.ncregister.com/site%20/article/2772
And you also seem to dissent from V2, as its judgment of the fruit of what you denigrate as "a mass of sheer rot" is that,
LUMEN GENTIUM: "..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities …"
• "They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power . Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.
• Dominus Iesus: " …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. ” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church .” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
But in contrast to Protestantism being a mass of sheer rot, the Scriptural reality is that liberal Protestantism is closest to Rome, both of which conservatives evangelicals separate from, and doctrinally Rome is critically contrary to the NT church, though some can find Christ therein if they see behind the smoke and mirrors, yet most are manifestly lost, and liberal.
One wonders what he’s been having for dinner compared to what the long line of Catholic saints, martyrs, theologians, and an illustrious A-Z list of Catholic converts have fed upon for some 2000 years.
Which argument from antiquity is another fallacious basis for Truth, as other ancient religions example. But let is compare distinctive Cath traditions* with Scripture which we both agree if from God.
BLUEDRAGON picks up quotes form Francis J. Beckwith, the former head of the 4300 Evangelical scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that ridicules Catholicism without noting that these were made after left the Catholic and before he rejoined the Church.
What logic. Intellectuals are to be followed, but one is only a real intellectual based on his final conclusion. So explain why this does not work for highly educated men as John Calvin , William Tyndale , Martin Luther, or atheism, which boasts of former religious intellects becoming one of them?
ELSIE, you might like to take note. Swimming across from the shallow end to the deep end of the theological pool doesn’t mean you have to drown. Others have made the journey
To Hell that is, as the devil has quite an intellect that God allows him to use to test souls with.. And having left one cultic pool of errors Elsie should be deceived by another, no matter how many souls slip into it. Broad is the way to damnation, and is tragically paved much by Rome.
* While much can be said about the state of the evangelical church today (and of my need for Christ-likeness), yet it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,
1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
I might point out in #5 “ grand titles (”Most Reverend Eminence,” “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) “ that the word “Reverend” is used only once in the Bible (Ps. 111:9) and that is a reference to God.
>>>HaHa...We’ve been trying to get an answer for a decade and a half.<<<
OK, OK - I concede...
[shuffles to the back of the line]
Empty Claims Placemarker
On this spot, I note that Steelfish has not provided a single shred of proof that there is such a thing as an Official List of Apostolic Traditions from Paul.
He has been asked repeatedly to support his false claim.
He has not.
If there is an official list of Pauline traditions, why doesn’t he publish it here to help other believers?
The answer must be that Steelfish has no proof to back up his claim. As such, it is just opinion. No more. No less.
There is a master in the house here. You are him. Your presentations are elegant. Catholics here appreciate you very much. Our own experiences are with those who are neither hostile nor bitter, therefore your little studies can fall on more grateful ears, thanks be to God.
This was a perfectly wonderful dissertation as well as a concise accounting of some very well educated and informed proddys, who got it, and fell into the arms of Christ’s Church. I appreciate the review of some of my favorites, dear Steelfish.
I am convinced you have broad audiences, full of those whom are far better prepared and more capable of appreciating your research, expertise and superior mind than here, so I thank you.
It is generous of you to do your penances here. :) Thank you. Rita
I know I am a whippersnapper, but let me school you on this. 😂😎 Of course, it has been so many years since I left the Catholic Church, my memory might be a little fuzzy, but I will do my best. Now, of course, when you have a false religion, like the RCC, each catholic might have different opinions on things. As far as I know, we were "Catholics" the day the priest sprinkled our heads when we were just a few days or weeks old. When I was 3 months old, while still in diapers, and on the bottle, I jumped up and slapped my mama for having me sprinkled. 😱😊
As far as I can remember, they taught us catechism in catholic grade school, to indoctrinate us more deeply into the RCC. I don't remember anyone ever questioning it. I didn't question it until I was already in the USAF, but praise God I DID question it. Now, I am a born again Christian, and quite frankly, I don't care who knows it or who does or does not like it. 😇
I left the RCC for the most important reason in all of creation. I knew I could not live up to their plan of salvation requirements, and I did not want to go to Hell. So, I went to the Bible, and found that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
This was a perfectly wonderful dissertation as well as a concise accounting of some very well educated and informed proddys, who got it, and fell into the arms of Christ’s Church. I appreciate the review of some of my favorites, dear Steelfish.
I am convinced you have broad audiences, full of those whom are far better prepared and more capable of appreciating your research, expertise and superior mind than here, so I thank you.
It is generous of you to do your penances here. :) Thank you. Rita<<<
OK, this is either the most cultish thing I have ever read, or Steelfish paid off his sister with a trip to Hawaii to write this.
On this spot, I note that Steelfish has not provided a single shred of evidence to support the canonicity of the epistle of James.
He has been asked repeatedly to produce the official RC positions on blatant contradictions between James and authentic authors of Scripture.
He has not.
If there are official RC positions on these contradictions, why doesn’t he publish them here to help other believers?
The answer must be that Steelfish has no proof to back up his dismissal of these contradictions. As such, it is just hollow opinion. No more. No less.
On this spot, I note that Steelfish has not provided a single shred of evidence to support RC catechism 823 that the RC church is the bride of Christ.
He has been asked repeatedly to produce the official RC evidence for this doctrine and rebut the argument that Scripture only ever describes the Church as masculine.
He has not.
If there is an official RC position to support this RC church = bride of Christ doctrine, why doesn’t he publish it here to help other believers?
The answer must be that Steelfish has no proof to back up this 823 catechism. As such, it is just empty opinion. No more. No less.
Well stated...as usual. Thanks!
I’d like to think this puts to rest the polemical, nonsensical, robotic and brainwashed rot being passed off as “proof” of the superiority of Roman Catholicism, but, just as children stick their fingers in their ears to block out correction, the spiritual children of Rome will only repeat the same mantra as if doing so often enough somehow makes their defense less of a lie. It won’t. At least we tried. The result is the Holy Spirit’s work.
Being as both of us are former Catholics, I should think that at one time, we probably did the same. 😇 But they do it over and over and over again. We may refute a false doctrine 4,000 times, and two posts later, there is the same thing all over again. It is spiritually discerned. Unregenerate man CAN NOT understand it, unless the Holy Spirit opens their spiritual eyes. If that does not happen, then there is no hope for anyone.
Hey, nice try anyway.
Perhaps you would be interested in providing the list of oral traditions that the church claims are handed down from Paul, that no one has yet been able to produce.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:25-26)
Thank you.
"Rah, rah for our team." Simply cheer leading. Catholics seem to have a giant blind spot when it comes to Catholicism. I guess that comes with a blind obedience to an ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Read it and weep. .)
“Perhaps you would be interested in providing the list of oral traditions that the church claims are handed down from Paul, that no one has yet been able to produce.” ———
With you, what would possibly be the point?
Do I look like a member of your staff? Produce your own effort.
After all, your limitations are your religion, so what would be the point of disturbing that kind of entrenched contentment with facts and figures?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.