“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.”
So you say. I say the heretics, those who place the doctrines of man over the doctrines of God, are the schismatic ones. They were left behind while the Bible believing went ahead.
“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?”
A criticism is not necessarily an attack. It can be made in love. You respond as though I am berating you. I am bringing up serious doctrinal issues and there are millions more that have the same issues with the RC church.
At the same time, I admit that many important doctrines and practices still held by the RC church are commendable and give me a great deal of hope.
And yes, I do know the most basic things. You seem to think it is a big deal that the RCs teach that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head. I don’t think that’s a big deal. Visible, invisible, or otherwise, there is no other head of the church but Jesus Himself.
“The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST. As such, it cannot err in teaching the body of believers. “
The church is the body of Christ. It is not Christ. It can err and it has erred many times in the past; although God mercifully preserves us.
“No, actually it isn’t. Peter committed no religious error there. He denied knowing Jesus of Nazareth out of fear.”
Seriously? Of course Peter committed grievous error. Jesus rebuked him for it. While Pentecost had not yet occurred, the disciples were given the Holy Spirit and the power to heal the sick and so forth long before Peter’s thrice repeated denial.
To say men can be inerrant because Jesus as man and God was inerrant is not logical. We can’t be man and God. Only Jesus can. We therefore cannot be inerrant. Scripture is clear that ALL men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The popes or the college of cardinals are no exception.
“Protestants simply look for something to legitimize their rebellion.”
Rebellion against what? The RC church? I was never a part of it, but if you want to call me rebellious, ok. I am appalled by some of the errors of the RC church and could not in good conscience join it.
Now what are you in rebellion against? As you kiss the feet of statues, call for the daily re-sacrifice of Christ (saying the host is actually His body, along with the church, which is a little confusing), do penance for your own sins, and pray to the deceased, you rebel against the word of God.
You wrote:
“So you say. I say the heretics, those who place the doctrines of man over the doctrines of God, are the schismatic ones.”
And those are the Protestants. Protestantism is a novelty. It is NEW. It is not historic Christianity. It is just an endless series of man made sects and doctrines.
“They were left behind while the Bible believing went ahead.”
Not ahead, but astray. If someone is left behind it means he is left where he was - where he always was. If someone “went ahead” it means he went somewhere where he had never been. That’s the whole point. Protestantism is not historic Christianity. It is man made. It is new. It is a novelty.
“A criticism is not necessarily an attack.”
Neither a criticism nor an attack makes any sense when it is grounded in an apparent lack of knowledge regarding the subject at hand.
“It can be made in love.”
Ignorance is not able to produce love. We can only love that which we know. If we don’t know it, and can’t identify it, then we can’t truly love it.
“You respond as though I am berating you. I am bringing up serious doctrinal issues and there are millions more that have the same issues with the RC church.”
And that just means there are millions living in ignorance. I see it here every day when someone claims Catholics believe this or do that when we don’t, haven’t and won’t. You did it toward the end of your post (I’ll get to that soon enough). Where does all of this ignorance in Protestantism come from? How is it that millions of Protestants are grossly ignorant about historic Christianity while still insisting only their new fangled view of Christianity is right?
“At the same time, I admit that many important doctrines and practices still held by the RC church are commendable and give me a great deal of hope.”
Well, lottidah. You admit that “many” historic Christian truths are commendable. Gee, that’s so mighty big of you. I sure hope you don’t over extend yourself by “admitting” that truths are commendable. Don’t pull a mental muscle or anything now.
“And yes, I do know the most basic things. You seem to think it is a big deal that the RCs teach that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head.”
Because it is a big deal when someone insists that Catholics DON’T believe that Christ is the head of the Church. See, it matters to me when someone either misrepresents the faith or just flat out lies about it. Is that difficult to understand?
“I don’t think that’s a big deal. Visible, invisible, or otherwise, there is no other head of the church but Jesus Himself.”
Except Jesus appointed a visible head. You can deny reality all you like, but to suggest otherwise would be irrational. Are you honestly claiming that Christ left the Church with no leadership at all on this earth? And please don’t tell me that it was only the Holy Spirit who was to lead. That still would not be Christ so it wouldn’t work for your argument in any case.
“The church is the body of Christ. It is not Christ. It can err and it has erred many times in the past; although God mercifully preserves us.”
No, in the teaching of doctrine to the faithful the Church has never erred and can’t err. Men can err, but God preserves the Church from teaching error. But the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and protects the Church from error.
“Seriously? Of course Peter committed grievous error.”
Not religious error in teaching the faithful. What religious error did he - acting as head of the Church (which had not even been revealed to the world yet - teach the people in the court yard? None. None at all. You will prove this yourself when you fail to come up with any such error. A truth will have been demonstrated to you, and I am willing to bet you will choose to ignore it. Also, since the Church had not been revealed to the world, Pentecost had not yet happened, there was no guarantee of infallibility at that time in any case.
“Jesus rebuked him for it.”
It? A religious error? Nope.
“While Pentecost had not yet occurred, the disciples were given the Holy Spirit and the power to heal the sick and so forth long before Peter’s thrice repeated denial.”
It doesn’t matter. The Church had not been revealed. It was not yet Peter’s time. Use your head. What came first? Luke 9 or Matthew 16? The Apostles were healing people in Luke 9. Peter was told he would be the Rock on which the Church would be built in Matthew 16. It was still a prophecy about the future at that time. Now look back at Luke 9. Notice how the Apostles were given the gift of healing BEFORE the prophecy from Jesus about Peter on his confession of faith in Christ’s messiahship (and divinity)? See verses 1 and 18-20. Didn’t you ever notice that before?
“To say men can be inerrant because Jesus as man and God was inerrant is not logical.”
To say that God cannot preserve men from error in a particular role or time is illogical. You believe in the inspiration of scriptures, right? That means the authors were inerrant while they wrote. If a man can be preserved from error while he writes an entire book, why is it illogical to you that God could do the same when he makes a statement about the faith?
“We can’t be man and God. Only Jesus can.”
That’s a ridiculously our of place comment since I never said otherwise.
“We therefore cannot be inerrant.”
So the gospels are frauds? You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say men cannot be inerrant at any time yet produce inerrant gospels. You also, logically, cannot say that the Holy Spirit was the only one inerrant and He simply acted through the sacred authors, because that would in no change anything. The final result would be the same: the gospels are inerrant, and the human authors wrote them out without error. That would make them inerrant at that time. And if that can be done, then there is no reason to believe the Holy Spirit - the Christ appointed, Christ sent protector of the Church - could not act through the pope or a Church council in a somewhat similar fashion.
“Scripture is clear that ALL men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.”
And yet you believe the gospels are inerrant anyway. And remember, you can’t just explain that away using the fact that the Holy spirit inspired the sacred authors. The end result is the same: inerrant books, inspired by an inerrant God, written through inerrant/inspired human authors.
“The popes or the college of cardinals are no exception.”
And yet they still teach without error when needed.
“Rebellion against what? The RC church? I was never a part of it, but if you want to call me rebellious, ok. I am appalled by some of the errors of the RC church and could not in good conscience join it.”
And yet you apparently cannot make a decent case against those supposed errors from what we see here. A conscience that is grounded or depends on misrepresentations, distortions and just plain lack of information or poor thinking will almost always choose the wrong thing.
“Now what are you in rebellion against? As you kiss the feet of statues, call for the daily re-sacrifice of Christ...”
And there again we see the lack of information or misrepresentation on the part of the anti-Catholic. No one can “re-sacrifice” Christ nor would anyone try. We merely re-present to the Father the same sacrifice in a sacramental form. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp
Your suggestion that we “re-sacrifice” Christ is much like what an anti-Catholic would say when he hears us say at Mass, “We proclaim your death until you come again in glory.” The anti-Catholic might say, “If Christ rose from the dead, why are you still proclaiming his death 2,000 years later?” The problem ultimately is that many anti-Catholics just don’t know the scriptures. They forget all about 1 Cor. 11:26. Your mistake is different, however. You are accusing us of doing something that we don’t even believe is possible and we wouldn’t do it if it were possible. No one re-sacrifices Christ. No one. Nor does anyone believe that they do it either.
“(saying the host is actually His body, along with the church, which is a little confusing),”
Not to Christians who know the scriptures. CHRIST said the bread was now His body. The Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write that the Church was Christ’s body. I don’t find it confusing in the least. Christians who know the Bible don’t.
“do penance for your own sins, and pray to the deceased, you rebel against the word of God.”
Nope. Not in the least. I have never prayed to the deceased. The saints are alive in Christ. As Christ Himself tells us in Mark 12, God is the God of the living, not of the dead. Those in heaven are alive in God. And doing penance or practicing self-denial are certainly not wrong since they are acts in tune with repentance and we should all repent of our sins. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1430 explains:
“Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sack-cloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.”