I feel sorry for people closed minded to Catholicism

[kayaker]

When was the Catholic Church founded? At Pentecost? Peter denied the Holy Spirit not standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel (Acts 2:14 KJV). Everyone heard the Pentecostal Gospel, even in multiple languages. Peter denied the Holy Spirit the second time preaching another gospel beginning in Acts 2:22 KJV. Those mockers included the non-Israelites (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:33 KJV; Romans 9:6, 7, 8; Revelation 2:9, 3:9) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV). Therefore, Peter denied the Holy Spirit addressing those who were NOT the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL... speaking of FEED MY SHEEP!

So, who sanctioned the members of Peter's one historic Catholic Church? Jesus? I really don't think so... can you spell 'rooster'?

kayaker

 

[Stuu]

Speaking of "great apes" your rep power is extremely low? Does
that have anything to do with your IQ being the same? Low that
is?

Hello, fellow great ape! I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you might be driving at.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

another non-answer due to lack of answer


ok


++

Non-answer to what question?

Stuart

 

[lifeisgood]

The Church says that the Pope's teaching is infallible when it is delivered in a formal or official capacity. That's what the doctrine of papal infallibility entails.

Rather, just as Peter taught infallibly under certain specific conditions---for example, when he wrote his New Testament epistles---so his successors (the popes) teach infallibly under certain specific conditions. Not everything Peter said was infallible, after all.

On the contrary. The distinction is spelled out right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try again.

This is merely your Straw Man Fallacy. See above.

Now go ahead and post the passage in the Catechism that supposedly states that "The Pope is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong EVER," as you claim above.

That's exactly what the Church teaches. Sorry for your confusion/ignorance.

Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+

Sorry, Cruciform, the RCC does NOT teach as you say that it does.

The RCC vociferously says that the Bible teaches pope succession, e.g., however, you know that that is NOT true.

IRENEAUS (AD 130-202) was the headspring of the RCC.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says "his was the first systematic exposition of Catholic belief."
Irenaeus introduced the false teaching of apostolic succession from Peter and the importance of tradition above the Bible.
Like Justin, Irenaus believed in transubstantiation and the annihilation of the wicked.
Based on Irenaeus, textual critics developed the heretical "Two document theory" that purports that the writers of the Gospels copied from each other.
(Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Irenaeus.)

BTW, infallible is infallible.
Either your pope is infallible or he is fallible. He cannot be both.

Again, I repeat, Peter never said he was infallible. The RCC says that all your popeS are infallible.

I would appreciate the RCC STOP lying about Peter.

 

[lifeisgood]

First question: Did Christ found a church on Earth?

Second question: If a church truly belongs to Christ, will Christ allow it to teach error?

First answer: No!

Second answer: Jesus did not found a Church on Earth.

 

[lifeisgood]

I'm impressed. You COMPLETELY avoided answering the question I asked. Interestingly, that actually answers the question: you have no such writings. Thanks fir being honest.

:thumb:

 

[lifeisgood]

There's certainly more than one English translation of the Bible approved by the Church.

In fact, the Douay-Rheims was published before the KJV, so perhaps it's the King of England who "fixed" the text. In any case, there is no such thing as an infallible translation, so your point simply falls flat.

Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+

The RCC can have ALL the Bibles in the world, and they probably have, however, they promote NONE of them because Irenaeus made tradition more important than the word of God and the RCC follow his directives as he is the headspring of the RCC and you follow Irenaeus instead of the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, exclusively.

I am so happy that the King of England "fixed" the lie of the RCC that Mary is the savior of the world, just to give you an example.

Have you never read 'The Mercies of Mary,' you know, the one with the imprimatur on it?

 

[Cruciform]

I'm impressed. You COMPLETELY avoided answering the question I asked.

There was no question posed in Post #69. In any case, your demand there is internally flawed, and therefore inherently irrational. Why? Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Sorry, Cruciform, the RCC does NOT teach as you say that it does.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:

891 The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful---who confirms his brethren in the faith---he proclaims by a definite act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor [the pope], they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith...​

In short:

"A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

1. The Pope must speak ex cathedra ("from the Chair" of Peter) in his official capacity.

"The Chair is - let us say it again - a symbol of the power of teaching, which is a power of obedience and service, so that the Word of God- the truth! - may shine out among us and show us the way of life." ~ Pope Benedict XVI​

2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
4. He must be intending to teach."​

​

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.php​

This is exactly what the Church teaches, and precisely what I've been saying. You're simply wrong.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[aikido7]

yeh, for sure, they are missing out BIG TIME

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you c an't...

I have been in just about every "church" you can imagine.. but none has what the Catholic Church has...

What's that, you may ask?

well, it does no good to say... but you can read past threads/posts of mine..

anyway, I did find ONE non-Catholic "church" I like

but I won't say which one b/c ... well, heck, same thing... no one seems to listen...

hard headed, etc..



+

Alarm and fear--much like in American politics--prevents people from opening up their experience to new ideas.

When you find yourself hard headed do you make a connection to your underlying fear?

 

[Cruciform]

No!...Jesus did NOT found a Church on Earth.

"And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).​

QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

There was no question posed in Post #69. In any case, your demand there is internally flawed, and therefore inherently irrational. Why? Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You already proved you can't provide the requested documents, why do you bother with further responses that only serve to further prove you have no idea what traditions Paul was referring to?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

"And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).​

QUESTION: Who's the liar---Jesus Christ, or you?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Your "Church" cannot offer you eternal life. That's between the
individual and God.

 

[Cruciform]

:thumb:

Oops! Post #88 above. Try again.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hello, fellow great ape! I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you might be driving at.

Stuart

Exactly my point!

 

[Cruciform]

You already proved you can't provide the requested documents, why do you bother with further responses that only serve to further prove you have no idea what traditions Paul was referring to?

Your rhetorical demand for "documents" is inherently self-defeating, and so no such documents need be provided. Why, then, do you bother with further demands for "documents" that only serves to demonstrate the intrinsically self-refuting nature of your approach? Back to Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Your "Church" cannot offer you eternal life. That's between the individual and God.

...according to the opinions that you have been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

 

[Cruciform]

...Irenaeus made tradition more important than the word of God and the RCC follow his directives as he is the headspring of the RCC and you follow Irenaeus instead of the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, exclusively.

Don't quit your day job, friend. Patristic Studies and Ecclesiastical History obviously aren't your thing. :darwinsm:

Have you never read 'The Mercies of Mary,' you know, the one with the imprimatur on it?

What is it that you imagine an imprimatur signifies, exactly...?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your rhetorical demand for "documents" is inherently self-defeating, and so no such documents need be provided. Why, then, do you bother with further demands for "documents" that only serves to demonstrate the intrinsically self-refuting nature of your approach? Back to Post #77.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Yes, they very much do need to be provided. Without them you have no justification for your traditions. The RCCs traditions are nothing more than the traditions of men.

 

[Cruciform]

Yes, they very much do need to be provided. Without them you have no justification for your traditions.

Nonsense. We have the very same justification that Christians have always had: "They are the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church."

Also, your statement here merely begs the question in favor of the inherently self-refuting 16th-century Protestant notion (tradition of men) of sola scriptura. Try again.

The RCCs traditions are nothing more than the traditions of men.

Declares one who is merely parroting the entirely non-authoritative opinions (traditions of men) of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+