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.
“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.