I , for one, am not protestant.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
You raised the points and now you are getting responses.Quote:
It would simply take more time then I have to respond to all of these. Even still, I'd like to point out the condescending nature of these responses.
No, that is not true. Once again, I am not protestant. But I note that over and over again there are a set of passages that just keep getting quoted and when the context is shown, there is no discussion in response. The Roman Catholic response is to simply repeat the same reference once, twice, 15 or more times again without even addressing the rebuttal which has been raised.Quote:
Tj3 asks, “Why do Roman Catholics not read what has been posted and keep just asking the same thing over and over?”
The question presumes that if a Protestant or Non-Denominational response isn't given it's not a correct and therefore nonresponsive.
Perhaps if there was some respectful acknowledgment of the response and some respectful interaction, we could avoid wasting everyone's time. Rather what we get is the arrogant quotes of what "The Church" has decreed.
You really like to mis-represent don't you? Because of past problems with this, I asked you to provide the actual quote, but again you do not, but rather dishonestly claim that I said something that I did not. Here is how the discussion actually went:Quote:
Tj3 after reciting Matt 12: 31-32 presumes that the Catholic faith “speaks against belief.” Further, he suggests that His Holiness the Pope is “pagan.”
----------------YOU SAID------------------------
The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church
----------------END QUOTE FROM YOU--------
Note the arrogant attitude, that ONLY the leadership of your denomination has authority over the "universal church". Now, here is what I said in response.
----------------MY RESPONSE------------------
Just quoting documents from your denomination is not going to convince those who hold to God's word.
BTW, do you know that the title "Pontiff" is the title of the priest in the pagan Roman religion that Constantine amalgamated with the churches to create the Roman Catholic denomination?
----------------END OF MY RESPONSE--------
Note that I did not, as you claim, says that the current pope is pagan.that was simply not honest. We never evene discussed the topic - if you would like, we can, and we can discuss the relative merits of the teachings of the current papacy, but until we do, please be honest in how you treat what I and others say.
Maybe you would like to go back and read what I said and see if you can come up with an honest rebuttal.
Then you mis-represent me further by saying...
Once again, I am not a protestant - how many times do I have to tell you this?Quote:
” [What amazes me here is that this is that even a Protestant can call the Roman Catholic Church “pagan” when it was that same Church that preserved the sacred Scripture for 1500 years, passing off to the non-Catholics to be misinterpreted, and continued maintaining them this past 500 years]
- If the RCC preserved the scriptures, then why did they add the Bible to the Index of Forbidden books?
- Why did they add books to the Bible?
There was a post on here, I believe from you, that used OT law to support the belief in purgatory. If you are going to base your beliefs on it, expect to get a response to it.Quote:
Peter Wilson recites Romans 10 in such a way as to presume that Catholics follow the Old Testament Law.
I note that when Catholics want to claim that this was about Peter, they quote from verse 18, thus cutting out the context:Quote:
Sndbay seems to be indicating that his own scriptural interpretation outweigh the Words of Christ; Matt:16: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And, with finesse I might add, eventually comes to call Catholics (or just me, I'm not sure which) hypocrites.
Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
NKJV
There is no way to read this as referring to Peter. Throughout scripture (and I will give references if you want them, the Rock is always God (usually directly related to Jesus). The word used for Peter is Stone, and scripture even tells us this:
John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV
If you want to discuss this passage further, let's do so.
Luke 6:41-42Quote:
While in part I understand, I still expected much more civility.
41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye.
NKJV
Talking about civility, you keep telling us that your denomination is "The Church", and that only your denomination has the right interpretation or the right to interpret (isn't that in and of itself hijacking scripture?). Rather than coming out with this arrogance, why not simply get into God's word and let's discuss.Quote:
Wow, I must say I'm amazed that Christians would shanghai Scripture to express their contempt for the Roman Church. Isn't it the Protestant Rule of Faith that Scriptural interpretation is private and guided by the Holy Spirit?
There goes that arrogance again. You are claiming (contrary to 2 Pet 1:20) that a group of men in your denomination are the only ones who can interpret. And further suggesting that we dare not disagree with your denomination ("Holy Mother Church"). Do you think that it would be conducive to discussion if I simply told you that you were wrong because the men in my church disagree with you and they are never wrong therefore you must be? Have you ever thought how you, and others who take the same approach come across, especially when you mis-represent what others who disagree with you have said?Quote:
Conversely, Catholic doctrine holds “that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.” (Trent, Fourth Session, April 8, 1546)
2 Peter 1:19-20
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
NKJV
