BRINGING EX-CATHOLICS BACK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A PERSONAL STORY

CATHOLIC CLASSICS UNLIMITED BRINGING EX-CATHOLICS BACK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ^

[verga]

Seems like you are the one whining here. Pesky things these facts.

[daniel1212]

Then how did you see mine? I didn't. I responded to your challenge put forth here:

Oh. I did not know the Google search showed the same thing.

[daniel1212]

Is this a Proverbs 26:5 moment?

Sadly because "a fool returneth to his folly." (Proverbs 26:11)

[daniel1212]

Correction/clarification: while "I said" is the same thing as "I wrote," the comment has me saying/writing a church of the Bible did not exist, but that is not what i said/wrote, but as repeatedly shown, "church of Rome" refers to the one described in the comment being responded to, but to the RC mind the church of the book of Romans gave us English Bible, which is the very premise that was denied and is refuted .

[vladimir998]

“I wonder what was wrong with the OLD version??”

Nothing. I had both. I also have the booklet explaining the editorial differences. You posted a verse from Micah that is from the NIV. I wonder what was wrong with OLDER versions of the Bible that you chose to use a relatively new one?

Elsie. Petard. Hoisted.

[wmfights]

I see your point bro. 😃😀

Thanks

It's always good to remember that FR is not what you will typically encounter in direct contact with RC's. The vast majority are unaware that Scripture is very clear that you can't work your way to heaven, or that an institution on Earth does not have any say in who is saved. My experience within my family and at work has been that if we actually open a Bible a lot of RC's come to know and believe The Gospel.

I think this is why you see the majority of people coming to faith are becoming Evangelical Christians not joining the RCC.

[metmom]

So it seems......

[rwa265]

Then why SO many of the FR ones seems to get outta shape because that is pointed out?

---

I can’t answer for anyone else. In fact, I haven’t really noticed anyone getting out of shape when it’s pointed out. I have noticed those pointing it out getting out of shape when they’re ignored.

[vladimir998]

So you’re going to avoid the fact that were doing the same thing you accuse the Catholic Church of doing - i.e. using a “NEW” edition of something?

Hypocrisy. All yours.

“A HUNDRED pages more??”

Yes - because that’s how long all the indices and the glossary are which were not included in the first edition.

The editorial changes to the CCC text amount to about 4 to 6 pages of actual single-spaced text for the entire CCC. Here they are:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm

“I post lots of stuff from Rome’s Douay-Rheims version;”

No, you don’t - because “Rome” doesn’t have a Douay-Rheims version. That’s an old Bible used by ENGLISH speaking Catholics. “Rome” never issued it nor does “Rome” even use it.

“yet there are newer ones: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition.”

Of course there are newer ones. That’s common sense. Just like it’s common sense to have newer catechisms and newer editions of catechisms. That’s why it made no sense for you to bring it up “NEW” in the first place. And it made perfect sense for me to show you were a hypocrite for using the NEW International Version in the SAME POST in which you attacked Catholics for having a second edition of the catechism.

Elsie. Petard. Hoisted. Again.