Who founded your church?

[Brakelite]

Fast forward to today and we find that the primary source of anti-Catholicism is government.

Riiight.... So unpopular with government that your leader is permitted to address the entire Congress and receives a standing ovation... Praised nationwide in the press.. then goes to the UN and speak there... Had thousands of dedicated followers and devotees lining up in the streets to catch a glimpse. Mmm. So much anti Catholic bigotry. You must feel so persecuted.

 

[Renniks]

For the same reason mega-church pastors and celebrity evangelists are revered. Our sinful Pope can say whatever he wants, but he cannot formally teach whatever he wants.

Well your doctrine says that the pope speaks for God on matters of doctrine. That was a mistake.

 

[Renniks]

When I became president and CEO of the Catholic League in 1993, the lion’s share of anti-Catholic bigotry stemmed from the entertainment industry and the media. Fast forward to today and we find that the primary source of anti-Catholicism is government.

This has nothing to do with this conversation. But since you brought it up.. Do you ignore the sin and cover ups in the CC or do you make excuses for them?

 

[Renniks]

Truth and error cannot coexist, or it isn't truth. The church has Jesus just as He promised, that is why doctrinal error is impossible, if

Even Peter fell into doctrinal error, yet you want to claim it doesn't exist in the church. Amazing.

 

[Marymog]

Including your leader. What does revering a sinful Pope have to do with following Jesus?

Name one Apostle who didn’t sin! Do you adhere to their teaching?

patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

It means the true church has Jesus who is the truth, not that there are no doctrine errors.

Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Sounds like you don’t believe Him if you think His Church has errors

 

[Renniks]

Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Sounds like you don’t believe Him if you think His Church has errors

Again, even Peter fell into error. The church is founded on one belief, that Jesus is the son of God. There's no perfect people in the church so it can never have perfect doctrine.

 

[Renniks]

Name one Apostle who didn’t sin! Do you adhere to their teaching?

patient Mary

Kinda missing the point. The pope isn't an apostle. He's a figure head

 

[David H.]

Kinda missing the point. The pope isn't an apostle. He's a figure head

Well said, and therein lies the problem there is no anointing there. Instead he has risen to power by the means of manipulation and lording over the laity. An anointed leader is exalted by God.

 

[Marymog]

Kinda missing the point. The pope isn't an apostle. He's a figure head

Nope. I’m not missing the point. Sinful men, the Apostles, led the Church, and sinful men still lead the Church. Are you suggesting you don’t have to obey them? Hebrews 13:17

curios Mary

 

[Renniks]

Nope. I’m not missing the point. Sinful men, the Apostles, led the Church, and sinful men still lead the Church. Are you suggesting you don’t have to obey them? Hebrews 13:17

curios Mary

I'm not a member of the CC, because I don't believe in everything you have to believe to belong, so, no, I don't recognize the pope as an authority.

 

[Brakelite]

I'm not a member of the CC, because I don't believe in everything you have to believe to belong, so, no, I don't recognize the pope as an authority.

Which response not so long ago would have turned you into a barbecue. Burnt at the steak. And will again in the not too distant future.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So the Coptics in Egypt are a dissident group, and the Maronites in Syria, the Chaldeans in Iraq, The liberation theologians in south America, All the various Old catholic churches in Europe, and the U.S.? You see how this close mindedness is reducing your church to a pittance now, and how little she becomes because of Nicolaitan doctrines that have infiltrated her.

Nope - YOUR problem is that you don't know what the Catholic Church is.
Allow me to educate you . . .

YOU and many others on this forum incorrectly use the term "RCC" or "Roman" Catholc Church to refer to the ONE Catholic Church.
"Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to ONE of about TWENTY Liturgical Rites within the Catholic Church. "Roman/Latin" happens to be the largest Rite - but by NO means the ONLY one. There is also the Coptic and Maronite, as you already entioned - as we all the Byzantine, Ruthenian, Melkite and several others.
ALL of these Liturgical Rites are in FULL communion with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

When I mentioned "dissident" groups, I was talkig about those that are NOT in communion with the Church, such as the SSPV, SSPX, American Old Catholic Church, Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch, ect. These groups and many more like them are Protestant sects - not Catholic.

So, you see - YOUR charge of the Church being "reduced to a pittance" is either a huge LIE - or simply more of your patented ignorance.
I think it's a little of BOTH . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Again, even Peter fell into error. The church is founded on one belief, that Jesus is the son of God. There's no perfect people in the church so it can never have perfect doctrine.

That's twice you have accused Peter of falling into error, but have failed to name the error that he taught.
Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.
Peter wasn't teaching anything when Jesus rebuked him.

Paul rebuked Peter in Gal. 2:11-15. Again, Peter wasn't teaching anything.
Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites (Matt. 23:2).

John 11:51-52 –you argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

Show me the errors that Peter taught that is still held today, or stop downplaying Peter's authority with the same 500 year old man made traditions.

The Pope is not infallible as a mere man apart from the Holy Spirit. This you cannot comprehend so you come up with fallacious arguments as present. It has nothing to do with being perfect.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you even read what I write? You are not arguing with a Calvinist. I already said we can throw away our salvation through unbelief. Also that deliberately continued sin can lead to unbelief.

Not sure who you are arguing with.

Ummmmm, I was arguing against your false statements, namely :
"salvation is a one-time event"
"You can't lose salvation"

What I did was to show you that Scripture PROVES that both of those statements are wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

846. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

847. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here. And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of faith that "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

WRONG.

First of all - the "heretics and schismatics" being referred to are APOSTATE CATHOLICS. These are people who knew the truth and rejected it. Paragraphs 846 and 847 of the Catechism, which are a sumation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church tere is NOT Salvation) are in perfect line with this earlie statement. READ the text in RED above: "those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".

As for the others - NOWHERE does it say that they must be full-fledged, Baptized members of the Catholic Church.
The entire point of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is about the fact that NOBODY is saved outside the Church.

Again - READ the text in RED.

Virtuall ALL Protestant sects have changed doctrines in the last 500 years. For starters, lets visit artificial contraception.
Before the Anglican Church's Lambeth Conference in 1930 - EVERY Chriatian group on the planet taught AGAINST artificial contrqaception. After that conference, where the teaching was changed - virtually EVERY Protestant sect followed suit.

Many have soince gon back to the teaching - but the Catholic Church stood resolute.
The Catholic Church has NEVER changes a SINGLE doctrine in 2000 years. That would be the sign of a FALSE church.

 

[Marymog]

I'm not a member of the CC, because I don't believe in everything you have to believe to belong, so, no, I don't recognize the pope as an authority.

I didn’t say the Pope as authority . I said sinful men (plural) lead The Church. That would be the magisterium in the case of The Church. The Poe doesn’t make doctrines.

Hebrews 13:17 says obey your leaders. What leaders do you obey Renniks?

curious

 

[Marymog]

Which response not so long ago would have turned you into a barbecue. Burnt at the steak. And will again in the not too distant future.

I feel bad for what the Protestants did to Michael Servetus and their other fellow Protestants

 

[Marymog]

Well your doctrine says that the pope speaks for God on matters of doctrine. That was a mistake.

REALLY??? Would you please copy/paste that doctrine from the Vatican website?

Patient Mary

 

[Renniks]

That's twice you have accused Peter of falling into error, but have failed to name the error that he taught.
Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.
Peter wasn't teaching anything when Jesus rebuked him.

Paul rebuked Peter in Gal. 2:11-15. Again, Peter wasn't teaching anything.
Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites (Matt. 23:2).

John 11:51-52 –you argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

Show me the errors that Peter taught that is still held today, or stop downplaying Peter's authority with the same 500 year old man made traditions.

The Pope is not infallible as a mere man apart from the Holy Spirit. This you cannot comprehend so you come up with fallacious arguments as present. It has nothing to do with being perfect.

I guess you disagree with Paul on this:
. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

If that's not a messed up doctrine, what is?