Replies

Here is the issue: Much of RCC doctrine relies on extra-biblical writings, so called Church History and/or Tradition. They give lip service to the Scripture, even overtly acknowledging that it is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. However, their words are empty. This is plainly seen throughout this thread. Each time Scripture is put forth to demonstrate God's position on a subject, and His position conflicts with that of the RCC, they ignore it, twist it, take it completely out of context, AND punt the argument to Church Doctrines, claiming its inerrancy on matters of faith.

It is clear that for the RCC, Scripture has no real authority. When it challenges their ideas, it gets set aside.

My point in the post you question is to demonstrate all the above. No one in the RCC can honestly take me up on the offer without watching their man-made doctrines collapse.

In any case, I am out of the discussion. I merely answered your post to provide a courtesy explanation.

When it a heretical interpretation challenges their ideas, it gets set aside.

Here is the issue: Much of RCC doctrine relies on extra-biblical writings, so called Church History and/or Tradition.

Do you reject history books from the time? Do you reject archaeological evidence from the time? Then why reject the first hand account of the Church Fathers?

With all due respect, you made some claims in your post that I will not let slide.

Here is the issue: Much of RCC doctrine relies on extra-biblical writings, so called Church History and/or Tradition.

Which is in itself Biblical when the Bible tells us to hold to the traditions passed down. So-called? Cute, but petulant.

They give lip service to the Scripture, even overtly acknowledging that it is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. However, their words are empty.

Who do you think you are to presume to speak for 2,000 years of Catholic thought or for us here for that matter? I don't care one whit if you "used to be Catholic" and then left. You have a very crude grasp of Catholic doctrine and its history if you believe that, furthermore you know NOTHING of what is in the hearts of Catholics on FR. You have been here for what, a month and a few weeks? I think you owe the Catholics here an apology for making a snap-judgement, and a false one at that.

This is plainly seen throughout this thread.

As is your arrogance.

Each time Scripture is put forth to demonstrate God's position on a subject, and His position conflicts with that of the RCC, they ignore it, twist it, take it completely out of context, AND punt the argument to Church Doctrines, claiming its inerrancy on matters of faith.

I'd ask you for an example, but you'd likely tell me to go look for one in the thread. No loss, members of the True Fatih can see through your posturing.

It is clear that for the RCC, Scripture has no real authority. When it challenges their ideas, it gets set aside.

You're a real peach. Try reading the Cathechism. It's all right there.

My point in the post you question is to demonstrate all the above. No one in the RCC can honestly take me up on the offer without watching their man-made doctrines collapse.

No, your original post simply says, "I'll debate this with you, but only if we first establish that I'm right." That is addle-brained nonsense. I feel sorry for you, truly I do. You walked away from the Church founded by Christ Jesus Himself and threw away the Sacraments He Himself instituted. And for what? To follow your own Burger King "have it your way" brand of Christianity.

Ahh well, I'll pray for you. Merry Christmas.