anticatholics: please list the "false doctrines of Catholicism"

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Problem. Paul was referring to existing traditions and at no point gives permission to add traditions as we see fit. Thus, when you cite the Catechism you are saying that scripture, that God, is not enough.


You've already been answered on this point repeatedly on past threads. The bottom line: Paul taught the binding authority of Tradition, an apostolic teaching that you deny.
Remember that Paul said, "hold to the traditions you have been taught." Note that that is past tense meaning that there were traditions already being practiced and Paul approved of them. You don't have a list of those traditions so we don't know what they are. Paul never said the we had the authority to add binding doctrinal traditions that are t be considered fully equivalent to scripture. Only your very man made traditions of the Roman Catholic sect encourage new traditions.

Question for you: Did God entrust the Law of Moses to the Jewish priests (Pharisees)? Did those who were trusted with keeping the law of God add traditions that were not in God's law originally? Was Jesus pleased with the traditions they added?


Again, the fact that they happen not to prefer the truth in no way means that the truth is insufficient or incomplete. Try again.
Or, and more likely, people do not see any truth in what you post links to.


It doesn't matter whether the actions are sanctioned by God or not. The issue is whether your hypothetical "ignorant outsider" could possibly misconstrue the actions.
No, that is not the case at all. In the case of bowing before a statue you are doing something that God said not to do. First, this means that you are doing something God said not to do. Second, by doing so, you run the risk of misleading people, something we as believers are warned not to do.


Already answered---and contextually corrected---in Post #316 above.
So stiff necked before scripture and God. God says no, your leaders say yes and you follow your leaders. Whom do you really love?


The issue isn't what "ignorant outsiders" misrepresent, but the mere fact that they could possibly misconstrue anything whatsoever. If they possibly could, according to your "logic," you must stop engaging in those actions immediately. When, then, do you plan on doing so?
No, yet again, that is not the case. You are doing something God specifically says not to do. There is no grey area, God says don't do it. We are also waiting for your example of something Protestants do in there services that God says specifically not to do. If you can't find and example then saying, "
could possibly misconstrue anything whatsoever" sounds as nothing more than desperate attempt to create a defense for the indefensible.


Again, go ahead and cite the paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that those who are excommunicated "go to hell." We'll wait.
I would suggest that you learn the definition of "implication". I never once said that the RCC taught this, what I said is that the implication is there as the RCC insists that it is the arbiter of salvation.

"
The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church."

No more is required than to state the truth. The fact that they happen not to prefer the truth in no way means that the truth is insufficient or incomplete. Try again.
When you start stating the truth then we will listen. Insisting that it is okay to bow before statues in spite of what God said. That is not truth from you.


Straw Man Fallacy. Rather, the Church possesses the very authority of Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15), the authority to override and void the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect regarding the authentic meaning of Divine Revelation (including Scripture).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
It is not my opinion that God the Father said do not bow before a statue of anything representing anything in Heaven above or on Earth. That is straight from Scripture, from God Himself. Do you really think that Jesus would say words to the effect of, "Dad was just kidding about that. Make statues of my Mom and bow to them, Dad wont mind." Really?
 

Cruciform

New member
Problem. Paul was referring to existing traditions and at no point gives permission to add traditions as WE see fit.
No, "WE" contribute nothing to Tradition. It is the Magisterium (bishops) which delivers God's word in and through Tradition, just as it has since the Apostolic Period, and continues to do today.

Thus, when you cite the Catechism you are saying that scripture, that God, is not enough.
Rather, I am agreeing with Christ's one historic Church that the word of God---i.e., Scripture and Tradition---is enough. Unlike yourself, I am not rejecting part of God's word in favor of a wholly man-made (16th-century) tradition of men known as sola scriptura.

Remember that Paul said, "hold to the traditions you have been taught." Note that that is past tense meaning that there were traditions already being practiced and Paul approved of them.
Of course there were Traditional doctrines already being preached by the apostles. Paul had been teaching such doctrines for decades before he ever penned any New Testament document whatsoever. And just because Paul commanded his listeners to follow the apostolic Tradition as it stood at the time---he could hardly command them to follow doctrines that hadn't been given yet, could he---that does not rule out the fact that Apostolic Tradition continued to develop throughout the Apostolic Period, into the Post-Apostolic Era, through the Early Church Period, and right down to our own day. See this.

Question for you: Did God entrust the Law of Moses to the Jewish priests (Pharisees)? Did those who were trusted with keeping the law of God add traditions that were not in God's law originally? Was Jesus pleased with the traditions they added?
Your attempted comparison between the Pharisees and Christ's own Church simply falls flat for several reasons, primary among them the simple fact that, unlike the Church, the Pharisees were given no divine promise that their teachings were identical with those of God himself (Lk. 10:16), nor that the Pharisee sect would in any way function as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The Pharisee sect had no divine sanction guaranteeing that the Holy Spirit would "guide it into ALL truth" (Jn. 16:13). In short, the Pharisee sect possessed no divine oversight and protection from doctrinal error as is promised to Christ's one historic Church under the New Covenant. Thus, your attempted comparison between the sect of the Pharisees and Christ's Church is a glaringly false one, and may simply be dismissed as such.

Or, and more likely, people do not see any truth in what you post links to.
That's between them and the Lord. People deny and reject the truth every day.

No, that is not the case at all. In the case of bowing before a statue you are doing something that God said not to do. First, this means that you are doing something God said not to do. Second, by doing so, you run the risk of misleading people, something we as believers are warned not to do.
Already decisively answered (Post #316).

So stiff necked before scripture and God.
Pot, meet Kettle.

God says no, your leaders say yes and you follow your leaders.
God says no under certain specific conditions that are spelled out in the context of the verse to which you're referring, but which you mindlessly refuse to take seriously. God says yes under certain conditions---which He Himself commands---your leaders say no under any circumstances, and you follow your leaders.

No, yet again, that is not the case. You are doing something God specifically says not to do. There is no grey area, God says don't do it.
See just above.

We are also waiting for your example of something Protestants do in there services that God says specifically not to do.
As has already been posted:
"It doesn't matter whether the actions are sanctioned by God or not. The issue is whether your hypothetical "ignorant outsider" could possibly misconstrue the actions."

I would suggest that you learn the definition of "implication". I never once said that the RCC taught this...
Then your complaint is once again based on an entirely imaginary hypothetical.

"The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church."
Amen. This is what Divine Revelation and the Christian Church has always believed and taught.

It is not my opinion that God the Father said do not bow before a statue of anything representing anything in Heaven above or on Earth.
QUESTION: How is it, then, that God himself COMMANDED the making of graven images of things in heaven and on earth specifically for use in the worship of God himself?

In any case, you've already been decisively answered on this point in Post #316 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform,
+T+
 

RBBI

New member
Only the demonically inspired Muslims have the dubious honor of doing more damage to the Lord, than that of the Catholic "church".

The church gathering together, started at the command of the Lord in the upper room, and culminated in the baptism into His body, the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Three thousand JEWS became believers that day. There is absolutely not a shred of anything that puts the Catholic "church" THERE, much less "leading the pack", exalted pope at hand. Nor anywhere else in the Book.

The pope and other blinded leaders of his type, are no different than the sin that David committed, and as such will be judged for it. They both want a WOMAN that is not theirs to possess, they make her into a whore for self gain, and they are willing to murder HER TRUE HUSBAND, to obtain her. But HaShem's judgment stands, because the "son" (that which they produced from their own "loins") is destined to perish.

Cry out to Him while you still can, and leave everything else behind.
 

Cruciform

New member
Only the demonically inspired Muslims have the dubious honor of doing more damage to the Lord, than that of the Catholic "church".
Now please go ahead and post your proof for this bare assertion.

The church gathering together, started at the command of the Lord in the upper room, and culminated in the baptism into His body, the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Three thousand JEWS became believers that day. There is absolutely not a shred of anything that puts the Catholic "church" THERE, much less "leading the pack", exalted pope at hand. Nor anywhere else in the Book.
Categorically refuted here, here, here, and here.

Be well, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

RBBI

New member
Now please go ahead and post your proof for this bare assertion.


Categorically refuted here, here, here, and here.

Be well, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Let me say up front I have nothing against the Catholic people as a whole. I've had many Catholic friends over the years. I only object to the bondage they're in.

So having said that, what proof will you receive? You obviously put catechism teachings above that of the Word of God. Where shall we start? With what they do that is not according to the pattern in the Word displayed, or what they don't do that is? Whichever, it will be enormously time consuming to relate....
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
We aren't anti-Catholic. :freak: We are anti-perverting-the-gospel-of-Jesus Christ (Ga 5:9).

We are saved by grace alone (Eph 2:8-9), through faith alone (Eph 1:13; 2Ti 1:10), in Christ alone (Isa 45:21,22; 59:16; Ac 4:12). :poly: Roman Catholics :eek:linger: deny this (Jude 1:11). :burnlib:

See:

Roman Catholicism
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
No, "WE" contribute nothing to Tradition. It is the Magisterium (bishops) which delivers God's word in and through Tradition, just as it has since the Apostolic Period, and continues to do today.
We meaning humans. The Magisterium are humans thus they are not allowed to add traditions any more than you or I are.


Rather, I am agreeing with Christ's one historic Church that the word of God---i.e., Scripture and Tradition---is enough. Unlike yourself, I am not rejecting part of God's word in favor of a wholly man-made (16th-century) tradition of men known as sola scriptura.
No, you are agreeing with the very man made teachings of your sect of Christianity. Christ's Church is made up of all who call Him Lord and Savior regardless of denomination. Said differently, God knows who the faithful are, not men.


Of course there were Traditional doctrines already being preached by the apostles. Paul had been teaching such doctrines for decades before he ever penned any New Testament document whatsoever. And just because Paul commanded his listeners to follow the apostolic Tradition as it stood at the time---he could hardly command them to follow doctrines that hadn't been given yet, could he---that does not rule out the fact that Apostolic Tradition continued to develop throughout the Apostolic Period, into the Post-Apostolic Era, through the Early Church Period, and right down to our own day. See this.
So show us where Peter or Paul or Barnabas or any of the others taught the bodily assumption of Mary or that bowing before statues is acceptable to God.


Your attempted comparison between the Pharisees and Christ's own Church simply falls flat for several reasons, primary among them the simple fact that, unlike the Church, the Pharisees were given no divine promise that their teachings were identical with those of God himself (Lk. 10:16), nor that the Pharisee sect would in any way function as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The Pharisee sect had no divine sanction guaranteeing that the Holy Spirit would "guide it into ALL truth" (Jn. 16:13). In short, the Pharisee sect possessed no divine oversight and protection from doctrinal error as is promised to Christ's one historic Church under the New Covenant. Thus, your attempted comparison between the sect of the Pharisees and Christ's Church is a glaringly false one, and may simply be dismissed as such.
Actually, the comparison is spot on. God allows us a rather terrifying amount of freedom in interpreting scripture. Errors creep in. Martin tried to correct the errors creeping in to the RCC but was excommunicated for his love for his church. Since the church is made of those who look to Christ and not to an institution, the teachings if Jesus remain pure within the body as a whole even though error, sometime significant error, creeps into the Catholic and Protestant sects. No one "church" is what you claim the RCC is. Indeed, if the RCC had remained pure to what Jesus taught there would be no statues in your churches let alone people bowing before them.


That's between them and the Lord. People deny and reject the truth every day.
Ultimately, you are correct.


Already decisively answered (Post #316).
We have already accepted your concession on this point. No need to turn and run every time it is mentioned.


Pot, meet Kettle.
Actually, no. I am only stiff necked and unyielding to the gross errors the RCC claims as tradition that defy God.


God says no under certain specific conditions that are spelled out in the context of the verse to which you're referring, but which you mindlessly refuse to take seriously. God says yes under certain conditions---which He Himself commands---your leaders say no under any circumstances, and you follow your leaders.


See just above.
What say we take a look at the context.

Exodus 20New International Version (NIV)

The Ten Commandments

20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Pray tell, what is the context of the Ten Commandments that we are missing?

As has already been posted:
"It doesn't matter whether the actions are sanctioned by God or not. The issue is whether your hypothetical "ignorant outsider" could possibly misconstrue the actions."
"It doesn't matter whether the actions are sanctioned bu God or not." Is that really the position you want to take. Just above, when God handed down the Ten Commandments, He very specifically listed several actions that are not sanctioned by Him. Its like you are saying that because you are praying to God while you murder your wife that it is okay to do so.

In any case, I am compelled to point out that once again you have not pointed out any act in a Protestant worship service that is not sanctioned by God. I actually know of several. Prosperity Gospel leaps to mind. And those "pastors" will be answerable to God for leading people astray.

Then your complaint is once again based on an entirely imaginary hypothetical.
It is neither imaginary nor hypothetical. It is a very real implication in peoples minds.


Amen. This is what Divine Revelation and the Christian Church has always believed and taught.
Way to COMPLETELY miss the point. If the RCC calims, as it does, that salvation flows through it, what is the implication to a person that is cut off from the RCC by excommunicated.


How is it, then, that God himself COMMANDED the making of graven images of things in heaven and on earth specifically for use in the worship of God himself?
Mainly because God did not command any such thing.


Numbers 21:8-9New International Version (NIV)

8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

No worship there.

Please, feel free to provide the scripture where God had Israel make some sort of statue and bow before it.

In any case, you've already been decisively answered on this point in Post #316 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform,
+T+
And as all the ensuing discussion has clearly revealed, post #316 answered nothing. It was simply a statement of RCC dogma that you are attempting to use to justify that which cannot be justified.
 

Cruciform

New member
We meaning humans. The Magisterium are humans thus they are not allowed to add traditions any more than you or I are.
As has already been posted:
"It is the Magisterium (bishops) which delivers God's word in and through Tradition, just as it has since the Apostolic Period, and continues to do today."

See this.

No, you are agreeing with the very man made teachings...
...only in the sense in which the infallible and authoritative teachings of the apostles themselves were "man made." Try again.

...of your sect of Christianity.
Already answered---and categorically refuted---in several posts on this forum. Here you're either willfully ignorant, or simply lying. Which is it?

Christ's Church is made up of all who call Him Lord and Savior regardless of denomination.
Try again.

So show us where Peter or Paul or Barnabas or any of the others taught the bodily assumption of Mary or that bowing before statues is acceptable to God.
Here, here, here, and here.

Actually, the comparison is spot on.
Already decisively answered.

We have already accepted your concession on this point.
Already decisively answered (Post #316).

Actually, no. I am only stiff necked and unyielding to the gross errors the RCC claims as tradition that defy God.
...that defy the mere opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, you mean. :yawn:

Pray tell, what is the context of the Ten Commandments that we are missing?
Already decisively answered (Post #316).

"It doesn't matter whether the actions are sanctioned by God or not."
Yes, it does not matter for the purpose of our specific discussion whether God approves the hypothetical actions or not. As has already been posted:
"The issue is whether your hypothetical 'ignorant outsider' could possibly misconstrue the actions."

In any case, I am compelled to point out that once again you have not pointed out any act in a Protestant worship service that is not sanctioned by God.
See just above.

It is neither imaginary nor hypothetical. It is a very real implication in peoples minds.
In whose minds, exactly? Name some of these supposed "blank slate"-minded (literally, "mindless") individuals. Post your proof.

If the CC calims, as it does, that salvation flows through it, what is the implication to a person that is cut off from the RCC by excommunicated.
The Church teaches that there are fragments of divine truth in the Protestant sects, and that God may choose to save some who are not formally joined to his one historic Church on the basis of their response to the light that they have. To be excommunicated means to be formally pronounced outside or against some aspect of the formal teachings of Christ's one historic Church. It is a form of ecclesiastical discipline, not a sentence of damnation.

Mainly because God did not command any such thing.
He certainly did, right here. Try again.

And as all the ensuing discussion has clearly revealed, post #316 answered nothing. It was simply a statement of RCC dogma that you are attempting to use to justify that which cannot be justified.
Rather, it [1] identifies the immediate biblical context of your selected proof-text, and [2] comports with the consistent understanding of the text by the early Christian Church. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
I only object to the bondage they're in.
...an assertion you have yet to actually demonstrate.

You obviously put catechism teachings above that of the Word of God.
No, I merely place the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church over the mere opinions (traditions of men) of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being concocted every week.

Where shall we start?
I'm afraid that, for the opinions (interpretations, etc.) that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to carry any binding authority whatsoever, you would need to first demonstrate that your chosen sect IS ITSELF in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and which therefore possesses the authority of Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15). Are you able to do that? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

RBBI

New member
I don't have to demonstrate it, you ARE. It's nearly inconceivable to me that anyone with a brain could actually believe that the Catholic church was the root, nor that what was said to Peter meant he was the rock it was built upon! The rock it was built upon was the revelation of who Yeshua WAS, which could only be revealed by the Spirit, because the flesh profits nothing, including HIS flesh. So they couldn't look at the flesh man and claim anything close to the reality, the Spirit had to reveal it to them. That is the point of the rock. this article sums it all up nicely, I think....

origin Catholic Church
Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
 

Cruciform

New member
I don't have to demonstrate it, you ARE. It's nearly inconceivable to me that anyone with a brain could actually believe that the Catholic Church was the root...
Just as you've been conditioned to react by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s). No surprise there.

...nor that what was said to Peter meant he was the rock it was built upon!
Unfortunately for your sect's assumptions, the early Christian Church was unanimous in its belief that Jesus' words in Mt. 16:18-19 referred to Peter himself. See this and this.

this article sums it all up nicely, I think...
...according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s), anyway.

Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"
You'll need to shorten your posts considerably if you expect a response to your anti-Catholic claims. Regarding your post here, for example, I would suggest choosing what are, in your opinion, the two or three strongest arguments against Catholic doctrine contained in your post and post those, so that a cogent reply can be made.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Dona Bate

New member
Let me say up front I have nothing against the Catholic people as a whole. I've had many Catholic friends over the years. I only object to the bondage they're in.
Has RBBI had any actual Catholic friends or is he just plain ole lying?

It's nearly inconceivable to me that anyone with a brain could actually believe that the Catholic church was the root,
RBBI believes all of his imaginary Catholic friends are brainless.

Imagine telling all your Catholic friends they are without a brain and them wanting to remain friends with you? Let alone you wanting to remain friends with people who you believe to be 'brainless' ?

RBBI is either lying here or lying to his imaginary Catholic friends?

RBBI is either a plain ole LIAR?

And/Or

A plain ole COWARD for not being truthful with his imaginary Catholic friends?



God Bless!
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Has RBBI had any actual Catholic friends or is he just plain ole lying?

RBBI believes all of his imaginary Catholic friends are brainless.

Imagine telling all your Catholic friends they are without a brain and them wanting to remain friends with you? Let alone you wanting to remain friends with people who you believe to be 'brainless' ?

RBBI is either lying here or lying to his imaginary Catholic friends?

RBBI is either a plain ole LIAR?

And/Or

A plain ole COWARD for not being truthful with his imaginary Catholic friends?



God Bless!

He was just being truthful.

Truth hurts sometimes Dona.
 
Top