Why would I need proof of something so obvious?
The word “Catholic” is not in the Bible, that is proof enough.
______________________________________
It is not “obvious.”
The fact that the word is not in the Bible is not sufficient proof. Is the word “Trinity” in the Bible?
By the way, do you know what the word, “catholic,” means?
It means follow your personal conscience and not the Bible apparently. Sin is whatever you “feel” it is.
lol.
I’ll stick to being a Christian.
SPV: It is not “obvious.” The fact that the word is not in the Bible is not sufficient proof. Is the word “Trinity” in the Bible? By the way, do you know what the word, “catholic,” means?
Well, the terms *sola scirptura* and *sola fide* are not explicitly found in the Bible and for that reason alone are wholeheartedly and thoroughly condemned by every Catholic I have ever seen post on the RF.
Can Catholics agree to stick to a standard of being consistent in what they do? Double standards are hypocrisy. Either it is rejected off the cuff if it's not found specifically by word or phrase in Scripture, or it is not.
This nonsense about accepting Catholic doctrine without it having to be mentioned specifically by word and rejecting *Protestant* doctrine because it is not mentioned specifically by word of which Catholic approve, is hypocritical beyond almost anything else I've seen.
If *trinity* and *Catholic* are expected to be accepted based on proof texts, be consistent in applying critical analysis and do not disqualify *sola scriptura* because it's based on proof texts.
Catholics need to show some integrity in this area.