the church

Cruciform

New member
"The whole idea of CC sacraments that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical."
Categorically refuted HERE, HERE, and HERE.

I personally had 5 of the 7 sacraments and there was no change in me what so ever...
According to Catholic teaching, a proper inner disposition must accompany the performance of the sacrament. It's likely you were lacking this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
Is there ever a point to your posts? Besides "The RCC says this or that"?
And yet, that's what it all amounts to for non-Catholics as well: "My preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has told me this or that!" Each individual is simply appealing to what he has been taught by his particular doctrinal tradition---including you.
 

Cruciform

New member
Eusebius was not even born until at least 260 AD. Why would I want to take his word for something that happened almost 2 centuries earlier?
Wow, a whole two centuries? Why would we take your word for something that happened two millennia ago? No thanks, I'll take the apostolic testimony of the early Church Fathers over the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any day.
 

Cruciform

New member
How do you know that bibilical account of Jesus naming him "rock" and giving him the power to bind and loose is true?
The same way that believers have always known the authentic meaning of the Scriptures---because it comports with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).
 

Cruciform

New member
I look at the witness of those closest to Jesus, and trust that His Spirit will lead me into all truth.
Actually, Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would "guide them into all truth" was issued directly to the apostles, that is, to the ordained apostolic leaders of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. Thus, the place to find "all truth" is in the teachings of Christ's Church, not in the personal opinions of each individual believer.

How can you say that the Roman Catholic Church has the right interpretation?
Because it is folly to assume that Christ's one historic Church could ever teach formal doctrinal error, any more than Jesus himself could ever do so (Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:16).
 
Last edited:

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
I've been studying Medieval History for decades. What would you like to discuss?[/FONT]

You're a fanatic- you can't discuss much with fanatics.

You see- the 16th Century Reformists called your church out on what you pretend to be all lies.
But they aren't lies, and we both know that :)
 

Cruciform

New member
You're a fanatic-you can't discuss much with fanatics.
You can go ahead and just apply that statement to yourself.

You see - the 16th Century Reformists called your Church out on what you pretend to be all lies.
Who cares what "the 16th-century Reformists" said about anything whatsoever? After all, they possessed no more ecclesiastical or doctrinal authority than any other heretic who had ever troubled Christ's one historic Catholic Church during her history---for example: Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Apollinarius, etc., etc., etc...
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Ah, I see. It's impossible.

But, purely in the form of a thought experiment, if it did happen, you'd comply?

I don't even comply now with all the stuff they have put out -
I make it a point to not read it all -
I don't want to know it all -
it is not for us -
it is for you guys who are forever wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a needle -
even though they now deny it - there was a time when they sold indulgences -
if they ever do it again and you have the money, go ahead and buy one, I am sure it would work
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Why not?..

Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there (Rom. 16; Col. 4:7-14; 2 Tim. 4:9-22; Philem. 23,24). If Peter was Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him. But Paul mentions neither Peter nor anyone else as being Pope...

Who can imagine someone today writing official letters to or from the church in Rome, listing the officers of the Catholic Church, giving all this information about the work and qualifications of lesser officers, but never mentioning the Pope? If the office of Pope was established by Jesus, why does the New Testament fail to mention it?
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
You can go ahead and just apply that statement to yourself.


Who cares what "the 16th-century Reformists" said about anything whatsoever? After all, they possessed no more ecclesiastical or doctrinal authority than any other heretic who had ever troubled Christ's one historic Catholic Church during her history---for example: Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Apollinarius, etc., etc., etc...

Notice they aren't around anymore :rolleyes:
In fact, the Reformists deemed them heretics as well.
 
Top