Replies

The Church holds that grace comes to the world ONLY through the Church, and thus salvation comes only through the Church -- extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

But like as many other magisterial teachings that RCs invoke as settling a matter, this is open to some interpretation. Some believe the only way Prots can be saved is if they repent of Protestant gospel and convert to Catholicism before death, even if not formally.

Others believe any devout Prot having a Trinitarian baptism has been born again, and there are Prot saints in Heaven now. And then you are those in btwn.

At the same time, the Church also holds that while grace comes to earth only through the Church, God dispenses it as He sees fit, so its certainly possible for those outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church to be saved.

Therefore despite all the Catholic affirmation of Jn. 6:54,54, you actually must deny that this means believing in the "Real Presence" is truly necessary to obtain spiritual and eternal life. Yet the absolute nature of this "verily verily" statement is hard to deny, as you must do if taken literally.

The Catholic Church holds that the bible is in various parts literal, allegorical, and symbolic. Most Protestants claim to biblical literalists, except, apparently, when literalism doesn't lead to the conclusion they seek... Protestants claim that the bible says what it says and you get what you see -- except when what it says doesn't jibe with Protestant dogma.

That is mere sophistry, for as i showed and will show, it manifestly and negatively applies to Rome, which despite ritually consuming human flesh being condemned,

and spiritual life never being gained by physically eating anything,

and the frequent use of figurative language for such, even stating humans were bread for them, and water was the blood of men,

while John in particular frequently uses figurative language for Christ, and that believing the gospel is the means of gaining spiritual life,

and the Holy Spirit only manifestly describes the Lord's supper once in the life of the church, and in which the focus is on the church as the body of Christ, not the elements eaten,

yet Catholicism, placing tradition over Scripture, turns the apostles into practitioners of endocannibalism!

And those who most strongly hold to the Scriptures being spirit and life, manifest much more spiritual life and commitment than those fed wafers and wine by Rome.

In addition, we can do what the noble Bereans did in objectively seeking to ascertain the veracity of truth claims, while you are bound as a faithful RC to make Scripture conform to her, if you will attempt to support her by it, even though that is not the basis for your assurance.

That's what leads to the inconsistencies of Protestantism.

Actually, besides comparing one church with a broadly-defined multiplicity that includes some who actually operate according to the RC model, the fact is that Rome abounds with inconsistencies with Scripture and the NT church, as well as interpretive disagreements, besides the dissent Rome implicitly sanctions.

Yet unity itself is not the goal, and which cults have which also operate according to the sola ecclessia model, not was comprehensive doctrinal unity ever fully realized. And the unity of the NT was under manifest apostles of God, in purity, power and probity, whose power was not that of the sword of men but of God. Which degree we do not see today.

Meanwhile, though the degree of tribal divisions in the Kingdom of Christ are regrettable, yet as one who become manifestly born again while a RC, and remained therein for 6 after after as a weekly RC, i can attest that RCs (like as institutionalized Prots, ec.) lack the basic essential unity of the Spirit, based on a common conversion and Scriptural relationship with the Lord Jesus - Christ in them and they in Christ (Jn. 17:21,23), which is so often spontaneously realized among evangelical types, and which transcends external divisions.

The Catholic Church interprets the bible and has never claimed that it is literal in every word, while Protestants claim that the bible says what it says and you get what you see

Wrong, and now you are resorting to using a straw man, as evangelical types take it literally as the word of God, but in which there exists difference literary genres.

In contrast, have stopped hindering Bible literacy, now she impugns its authority, as right in your NAB Bible you have church-sanctioned notes that for decades has taught such things as,

that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.

"Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”

And more. Besides her fruit mainly being that of liberalism.

Thus once again arguments in support of the desired image of Rome has resulted in more exposure of what really she is.