“And to see the Catholic Church - the Church from which Protestant sects left - as a sect is a sign of ignorance.”
Well, I could say that to see the errant members who clung to incorrect doctrine and practice, while the faithful abandoned such things, is a sign of ignorance, couldn’t I?
“The Church is Christ’s Body. Christ acts through it. The Church is Christ’s Bride.”
Agreed.
“But you’re not members of His Church. You’re in a man-made sect.”
I think you are in the man-made sect. I appreciate that your quotes show that official RC doctrine is, that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head of the RC church.
Here, we run into problems, where we find the Pope and/or the church taking on the role of God, for instance:
“163. What is meant by the infallibility of the Catholic Church?
By the infallibility of the Catholic Church is meant that the Church, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot err when it teaches or believes a doctrine of faith or morals.”
And so we see that the church, with a nod to the Holy Ghost, can not err, according to your catechism. But inerrancy is an attribute of God alone, actually.
Faithful Protestants do not believe any of their leaders are infallible. We do indeed accept their authority over us, and submit to them as long as they submit to Scripture. But we know from Scripture than men are not infallible. It is pretty obvious. Peter’s denial of Christ! Peter, who is supposed to have been the first pope - denied Christ three times. Was he the visible head of the church at that point? I hope not.
Now I don’t mean to beat up on Peter. His repentance was genuine and Jesus clearly forgave him. But his denials are a good example of how even “popes” can commit the most grievous errors.
There are many quotes from the Baltimore catechism which are true. I don’t deny it. But there are portions where the church slides into the place of God rather completely, and from there comes the errors commonly debated between Protestants and Catholics.
You wrote:
“Well, I could say that to see the errant members who clung to incorrect doctrine and practice, while the faithful abandoned such things, is a sign of ignorance, couldn’t I?”
No, you could not say that logically because that isn’t what happened. What I said is undeniable. People left the Church and formed heretical and schismatic sects. To call the only Church anyone even knew - from which those Protestant sects came - a sect can only therefore be a sign of ignorance.
“I think you are in the man-made sect.”
And you’re wrong. These issues are not matters of opinion.
“I appreciate that your quotes show that official RC doctrine is, that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head of the RC church.”
What the quotes showed was that you were in error - objectively in error. I, however, made no such error. You are attacking the Church even though you apparently do not know the most basic things about it. Is ignorance a firm basis for criticism?
“Here, we run into problems, where we find the Pope and/or the church taking on the role of God, for instance:”
Christ gave the Church authority - Luke 10:16.
“And so we see that the church, with a nod to the Holy Ghost, can not err, according to your catechism. But inerrancy is an attribute of God alone, actually.”
The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST. As such, it cannot err in teaching the body of believers. Again, Luke 10:16.
“Faithful Protestants do not believe any of their leaders are infallible. We do indeed accept their authority over us, and submit to them as long as they submit to Scripture. But we know from Scripture than men are not infallible. It is pretty obvious.”
Our leaders are fallible men, but the Church teaches infallibly. Christ was a man, but God as well. People could see He was man, but could not see His divinity. The Church is infallible, but that doesn’t mean people will see it in its ministers - especially when people deny the faith.
“Peter’s denial of Christ! Peter, who is supposed to have been the first pope - denied Christ three times. Was he the visible head of the church at that point? I hope not.”
He had not yet been given the Holy Spirit and the Church had not been revealed to the world. His denial was of his relationship with Jesus as in a simple natural earthly relationship. Would Peter ever deny Christ after Pentecost? I doubt it. Would Peter ever have denied the Lord after the resurrection of Christ? I doubt it. And notice, when Peter denied knowing Christ he did NOT deny that Jesus was divine. That was the doctrine.
“Now I don’t mean to beat up on Peter. His repentance was genuine and Jesus clearly forgave him. But his denials are a good example of how even “popes” can commit the most grievous errors.”
No, actually it isn’t. Peter committed no religious error there. He denied knowing Jesus of Nazareth out of fear. He denied no doctrine. Notice, again, he did not deny that Jesus was divine as he attested in Matthew 16.
“There are many quotes from the Baltimore catechism which are true. I don’t deny it. But there are portions where the church slides into the place of God rather completely, and from there comes the errors commonly debated between Protestants and Catholics.”
No. There are no errors there. Protestants simply look for something to legitimize their rebellion. Some are waking up now and realizing their error.