Post your proof.
...declares the clueless and pushy anti-Catholic.
Feel free, then, to actually disprove our statements with sound arguments and consistent reason. We eagerly await your proof.
You can go ahead and just apply that to yourself and your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect, friend.
This is what we are actually trying to ascertain. Is the teaching of the RCC authoritative. Certainly the RCC has assumed authority but they cannot document it beyond simply stating they have it. There is nothing in scripture that says we are free to add traditions as we see fit. Indeed, there is scripture the documents Jesus becoming angry when traditions were added that went against His Father. Given that bad traditions make God angry, I want to know that the traditions the RCC teaches are indeed the traditions that Paul was referring to. Unless you can document exactly what traditions Paul was referring to I am forced to keep the bible in its place of doctrinal supremacy and weight all traditions against it. Do you know exactly what traditions Paul was referring to?
Were they? Certainly your sect of Christianity asserts this but, given that bad traditions make Jesus angry, I want to know that your traditions are what Paul was actually teaching before I submit to them. Is that an unreasonable request?
No, post 45 is proven a logical fallacy.
You may, but given that your Catechism conflicts with scripture is so many places, I cannot. You see, your Catechism is essentially what men have said Jesus would have said had He been around to say it. Scripture is what Jesus actually said. The way I figure it, if listen to what Jesus actually said instead of what men say He said, then my foundation is pretty solid.
Did not exist at all. Can you say indulgence? Indulge me and show us where anybody in the new testament taught indulgences as practiced by Rome during the Middle Ages or at any time for that matter.
Galatians 2:11-21. It stands pretty well on its own. I know your church teaches that it does not because they are rather heavily invested in Peter always being right as the first Pope so that you can believe all subsequent popes are equally right. The sad thing is is that it makes for a church that allows error to creep into its teachings because there is no way for its leader to be corrected when correction is needed.
I have simply asked you to defend your faith. You cannot. Sure, you can post links to all kinds of Catholic documents and say this is what I believe, but when pushed, you cannot defend your beliefs to me. I asked you to defend your beliefs about Mary in post 518. To date, you have never done this. I have asked you to defend traditions. To date, you have never done this. So I push a little harder and you get mad and defensive and evasive and never answer a question. Why should I become a Catholic (again) when nobody can answer my rather simple questions? The saddest part of the whole thing is that there is one answer that would instantly and permanently shut me up and I doubt that you have any clue what that is. And that is the saddest thing of all.The fundamental error of your statement remains rooted in anti-Catholic error coupled with arrogance.
And your final resort to an ad hominem argument.
Then it should be easy for you to disprove our position. Go ahead, then, and post your proof.
Again: post your proof.
Oprah called. She wants her imaginary New Age pop-psychological fantasy back. :darwinsm:
Of course she can, just as she always has (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).
Merely another Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since this is not at all what the Catholic Church claims to do. Try again.
Yes, there is a type of tradition that is condemned by Jesus and the apostles (i.e., merely human traditions, "the traditions of men"). However, there is ALSO a form of Tradition which is encouraged, and even commanded, in the NT (Sacred Tradition, or Apostolic Tradition). It is the latter which you deny and, in doing so, deny the Scriptures themselves.
The Church herself teaches just that fact. The doctrines of the Church carry the very authority of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15). One either accepts and follows the Church's (and therefore Christ's) authoritative teachings and self-testimony, or one does not.
In fact, what you're "weighing all traditions against" is not the Bible itself, but merely your preferred interpretations of the Bible, which carry no authority whatsoever. In any case, this has already been answered above.
Already answered.
Already answered above.
You're simply wrong on this, or else you have no idea what a "logical fallacy" is. Either way, Post #45 stands exactly as given, and your claim to the contrary has already been answered---and refuted---in a previous post.
Again, the very most that you can validly claim is that the Catechism contradicts your preferred interpretations of Scripture which, again, carry no binding authority whatsoever. Try again.
Of course you can't, since your chosen recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect will not allow you to think or believe contrary to its own tenets and dictates. Like everyone else, your beliefs are guided by your tradition.
Wrong again. Sacred Tradition is every bit as much "the word of God" (Divine Revelation) as is Sacred Scripture.
Already answered in previous posts.
You're so predictably wrong. Paul confronted Peter not over Peter's teachings, but over his behavior---that is, the fact that Peter was acting in a manner which was inconsistent with his (Peter's) own infallible teachings. Try again.
Yet another Straw Man Fallacy for you. The Church has never taught that the Pope is "always right." So much for your claimed "knowledge" of Catholic teaching.
Sounds remarkably like the myriad Protestant sects with their hopelessly unworkable principle of the Private Interpretation of Scripture.
Of course I have, the content of which you have been utterly unable to disprove or refute in any rational manner. For example, readers should take note that CM will offer no rationally compelling or logically valid counter-argument to a single point made in this very post itself.
You're such a natural and effortless liar. May God help you (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).
Again, the fact that you don't prefer (like) the answers because they contradict the dictates of your chosen recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect certainly does not mean that you have not received the answers. The problem is with you, not with the substance of the truth.
And you still have no idea what an Ad Hominem actually is. :doh: No, there's nothing whatsoever ad hominem about Post #94, since it is in no way directed to your motives or character, but only to your actions on this forum. It is based upon an observation of your own posted statements here on TOL. Try again.
Of course I know what it is. You do it all the time. I asked you a question about Paul. You respond with allegations about my motives and allegations about hating Catholics. It's the very definition of ad hominem.
It would take a far larger format than this forum---and much more time than I'm likely to have---to express the differences that Christ has made in my life. In short, He has influenced and altered every single aspect of my life over the past five decades, and this ongoing conversion continues to take place virtually every day.
So, then, you have no actual proof whatsoever. That's what I thought.
Of course, that's nonsense. The Catholics here have demonstrated the truth of the Catholic faith countless times on this forum. Sorry for your confusion.
Each post is just one more opportunity for musterion to place his ignorance of a given subject on public display, in this case the purpose of creeds and catechisms. Brilliant.
