After that portion, everything is simply more noise to pretend that discussion is being attempted. Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.
If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".
Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.
No, i do not believe that the pope is the The False Prophet or the AntiChrist, nor anyone i know of now, though i can think of someone more fitting.
As for whether a pope could be either, i certainly allow that, but it seems some of your own did, or at least those of your schismatic sedevacantist brethren, (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/section1.pdf) though they seem to be more tolerated.
The Catholic bishop Arnulf of Orleans was the first to apply the 'man of sin' prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to the papacy.[7][26] The same interpretation was given by the Catholic abbot Joachim of Floris in 1190[7] and the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240. — EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume IV, Appendix I, fifth edition, 1862; Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, volume I (1950) pages 541-542
However, if your interrogation is for the purpose of determining whether i am anti-Catholic, then i think i have made that clear, as you have that you are anti-Protestant. The issue is on what basis. On our part the question is whether it is a result finding Scripture to be the assured word of God and thus seeking to go whether Scripture leads, and resulting in affirming truths we both affirm on the weight of Scriptural evidence, and contending against those who deny them, as well as against those teachings we find as being a product of Rome making dogma out of mere traditions of men. Or whether opposition is due to some other reason, as often is alleged.
I am not motivated by any personal animosity toward Rome, and had no real negative personal events there, and my leaving many years ago was done prayerfully. And here i have sought reasonable exchange, and a higher level of substantive debate than simply name calling and such, though this can be hard. But neither are we to sit docile in the midst of the constant (and i meant constant) promotion of teachings of Rome and here as the one true Church©. And if you will assert such, then you cannot complain when it is challenged point by point.
And rather than broadbrushing, you have more reason to deal with opposition as individuals, if such are not preaching a particular church, as you do. Yet we also must deal with Roman Catholics as individuals, as some are more Traditional and others are quite liberal, and some want JP2 canonized while others blast him. But rather than interrogating every Roman Catholics i think that if one show them self reasonable then exchange may be possible.
If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".
Rashputin, i saw interrogation as a regards herring in contrast to their real issues, and your one-size-fits-all response of overall misrepresentation (which was not in response to my post) and responsive interrogation hardly evidences openness to discussion, but which i think my reasoned reply to the veracity of the substantial issues behind your unreasonable rant did, rather than replying in kind. But if your defense of Rome means that you cannot engage anti-Catholics who seek to stick with real issues, and allow they can have sincere reasons for doing so, without you resorting to your manner of response at issue, then continue to do as you have.