They even admit the catholic understanding of Luke 1:28 is wrong also.
There is also no appeal to the ECFs either.
The Catholic Encyclopedia online also admits to this.
So what's the appeal? Man-made hopes and wishes?
It's amazing that without firm Biblical support or the support of the ECFs that catholics continue in this deception away from clear Biblical teaching on how all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I can only ask why?
It's astounding really. I was just reading through some of the written statements which admit no support from either scripture or the ECFs for so many of the Catholic beliefs. Yet they hold some of them as "requirements" or "obligations" for salvation and membership. It's obviously a man made religion.
What links? None here.
Here are some rules from my profile page, which you can access by clicking on my name at the bottom of this post:
Linking to Previous Posts on the Religion Forum:
The objective, on the Religion Forum, of not bringing forward disputes from prior threads is to discourage flame wars spreading, in particular the needling or badgering of other posters by bringing up their past remarks, again and again. However, if you were to say “I recall your saying something else on an earlier thread” and the poster challenged you “Oh yeah, where?” then you would be obligated to link to the previous thread and I would not pull it.
If you want to argue the previous claim, then go back to the earlier thread, ping all the interested parties and say something like “Here you say the sky is green. Why?” The respondent will be obligated then to explain the green comment in context with that particular thread and parties involved in it.
If however you are seeking to “impeach the witness” by showing he waffles back and forth THAT is “making it personal” and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
And if you are trying to embarrass another Freeper by recalling his inconvenient comments from prior threads, THAT is also "making it personal" and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
A poster may quote himself from a prior thread. And he may link to articles he has previously posted. That is not "making it personal" - he is merely reasserting his own views. He may link to articles posted by others or other posters' remarks which are not part of any dispute, e.g. "You hit the nail on the head when you said..."
If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a "caucus" of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label. Besides, he can always quote the source article directly without seemingly trying to work around the caucus protection.