Cruciform
New member
The Church certainly does not now teach that Purgatory "does not exist." Your claim here is simply wrong.
Neither has ever been a formal doctrine of the Catholic Church. :nono:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
ECT INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE: Common Non-Catholic Misconceptions
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
0scar
New member
probably you will substain that the Church always defended the round Earth orbiting the Sun.
the point is:
if in a giving point the Church comes with a new doctrine, then the Church was wrong before teaching the new thing.
if today the Church comes with the "A" doctrine, then the before doctrine concerning "A" was wrong.
Cruciform
New member
There are no "new doctrines," only a further and deeper explication of the original apostolic deposit of faith.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Bottom line, just the concept a bunch of men elect another man, who then becomes suddenly endowed with some spiritual infallibility, some perfection, is lala land. I once read a book, titled something like "The Bad Popes," where there was some real make-you-want-to-puke evil in a number of Popes. So, out of the other side of their mouths comes the Holy Spirit? Completely senseless. A man can't serve two masters in the first place, be doing the works of the devil and also serving God. Only somebody brainwashed could swallow such concepts.
Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Cruciform
New member
If you intended to say "excommunicate," you're simply wrong. The term means no such thing.
Cruciform
New member
Not for denying or rejecting the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church, no. Nor were believers in, say, the 1st century given "allowance for disagreement" (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4).
The Magisterium (body of bishops) as a whole is also infallible when formally pronouncing upon doctrine and morals, and this has happened rather frequently throughout Christian history.
I'm doing no such thing. Rather, this is one of the main points of difference between Catholics and non-Catholics, and so it deserves to be clarified. (Incidentally, I couldn't care less how it "looks.")
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Here you've committed the exact error which the OP seeks to correct. Back, then, to the OP.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
republicanchick
New member
ha ha... anticatholics here obviously need SOMETHING more than the Christ they claim to have..
you cannot have Christ fully (and the way God wants) if you do not have HIS Church
"not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heavne but only he who does the will of the Father"
___
Well, let me infallibly declare that I am infallible and then I can give you my infallible opinion which you must adhere to.
The Roman Church is man-made. Circa 1054AD, when it founded it's extremely convenient notion that it was always infallible and others are just imitators.
And then she killed everybody. Good job.
Cruciform
New member
Sure, all you have to do now is demonstrate that you are in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Go ahead, then, and post your proof.
Rather, the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.
Yes, the anti-Catholic assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Protestant Christian theology is what all the early Christians held to. They held to being sola fide.
Saint Augustine would fully agree that Roman Catholicism after his death has disrupted the entire, beginning substance of Christian ideology.
Also, you don't hinge an entire, universal church order on a couple of verses.
I can give a whole chapter on why we were justified in leaving the Roman Church. ~Matthew 23~
Cruciform
New member
Only in your imagination, since there were no Protestants until the 16th century. THIS is what the early Christian Church actually believed and taught---not very "Protestant," is it.
Not even a little (see above).
That would be odd, since Augustine believed and taught the body of Patristic doctrines cited above... :think:
No, we certainly don't.
You're embarrassing yourself. Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Martin Luther knew the teachings of the early church leaders very well, it is not something magically excluded from anyone who isn't Catholic to understand.
And, as soon as these writings, including scripture, were mass produced and known among many, the world challenged the Church on how it could not be the seat of perdition.
This is something that modern Catholics simply just do not get. People didn't simply up and say 'hey let snot be Catholic'. No, rather the Church condemned itself like the Pharisees did, which is the relevance of Matthew 23- Jesus told his disciples to no longer follow the damned Pharisees, because they were vipers.
You will notice that the Church is guilty of every single thing noted in Matthew 23..
Cruciform
New member
Unfortunately, Luther did with the Patristic writings the very same thing he did with the Scriptures themselves, which was to interpret them according to the dictates of his personal pre-fabricated theological opinions. He was forced by this agenda to cherry-pick the Church Fathers just as he cherry-picked proof-texts from the Bible---accepting only those that seemed to him to support his already-manufactured heterodox doctrinal system.
Again, see the link to Patristic quotations cited in Post #95 above.
Go ahead and post your supposed proof for this completely unsubstantiated assertion.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Don't need to, history speaks for itself. There's not one thing listed in Matthew 23 that the Church has not been guilty of at some point in time.
I particularly find this compelling:
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,
And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers
The Church did exactly this with the saints.
Cruciform
New member
So, then, you have no actual proof whatsoever. That's what I thought.
Sorry if I don't feel too compelled to find the gargantuan list of all the sins of the Church to answer what you already know is true.
Cruciform
New member
If you can't back it up, then don't bother making the claim.
Your posted assertion was that "the Church is guilty of every single thing noted in Matthew 23." Now go ahead and prove your claim, or have the intellectual integrity to publically retract it.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+