You base your theories on experts who came 1500 years later.
Your “heresy” arguments are straw man arguments, and those pushing the argument are “judging (catholics) on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries” to prove your ideas. (quote is JFK).
which is why you quote a snippet from a canon law article from the Council of Trent that you use to “prove doctrine”, ignoring that it is a legal not doctrinal article and probably in toto is full of legal nuances that you have ignored...and of course, it is 500 years old... I notice you aren't quoting Vatican II documents or the recent Catechism.
you then insist that “catholics” who leave and reject the church can be saved, but get annoyed when I point out that this implies no Catholics are saved if they stay in the church. Huh?
as for your using the word “cult”,this is a “name calling” argument and silly. The word “cult” implies monolithic thinking. No one with the least bit of knowledge of Catholics or Catholicism as it is actually practiced would believe this.
“The word “cult” implies monolithic thinking. No one with the least bit of knowledge of Catholics or Catholicism as it is actually practiced would believe this.”
Really? Then what’s the purpose of all the anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent for those who dare to disagree with their proclamations?
Like some of these......
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Canon 19. If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 27. If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.
What I have done is to point out teaching from Scripture-God’s inerrant word-and juxtapose it with actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Cult (which satisfies your own definition...thank you) particularly from the catechism and asked simple questions.
Why won’t ant Roman Catholic give a straight answer? Has nothing to do with all of church fathers and Vatican I or II or whatever. It’s a simple question... Is Mary a Mediatrix as the catechism clearly states, or is Christ, according to his own statement? Can’t have it both ways.
And, please...don’t be so insulting to my intelligence as to play the straw man game. I’ve seen it played here and called it out for what it is. Someone (was it you or someone else?) accused me of a false dichotomy when there is only one answer and therefore NO false dichotomy.
Rome is heretical because it teaches another gospel. You may not like it but those are the facts.
Nice try but no cigar.
Hoss
It DOES?
Well; I guess there are enough 'poorly catechized' Catholics abounding to put the lie to the idea that Rome leads a cult!
Herd them thar cats!