I ask or contradict in order to correct misunderstandings of the Catholic teaching. Similar to yourself, I post for the reader, not necessarily for the addressee of my posts. I try to avoid posting my opinions, even though it is sometimes hard to draw a line. I dismiss outright when someone starts some kind of speculation about the Holy Scripture without staying close to the text.
I also think that the world would be a better place if Protestant charlatanism were ridiculed more often. When I find time, I do my part. For example, on this thread it was asserted that Christ said one thing but meant the exact opposite, and that instead of seeking disciples He all of a sudden decided to drive them away and to what He just described as a state of damnation. That is rich material, worth of highlighting for all to see.
Yeah, we all would do better if we cut to the chase faster.
Except the problem is, you never present anything to back up your statements.
All we get from you is your opinion.
Your own personal interpretation of Catholicism, as it were.....
YOPIOC
......stated as fact, as if every Catholic on the planet agrees with you, or as if you are presuming to speak for Catholicism as a whole.
On what basis should we take seriously ANYTHING that comes out of your keyboard.
Please provide unbiased, objective sources that validates your being a spokesman for all of Catholicism.
We could cut to the deliberating on the implications and applications of Scripture if/when God allows (through faith) to receive that what you reckon as a parable, a literal rendering of figurative language, is really a revealed "mystery" of the kingdom of Heaven; whilst at the same time you leave behind "charlatan" and "Protestant" and other invective that soil and distance your readers.
Still, access to that route is clearly up to The God Who Alone saves, and is a shore you cannot reach until you cast all your trust on Jesus alone, and not on the Magisterium and its dogma.
You've got a hard task ahead of you; considering plain, Catholic teaching...
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
--Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
Me; too!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.