Your comment is irrelevant. I made no comments about anything doctrinal, just offered an observation about two different types of church structures. Your catechism clearly demonstrates that the RCC is a rules based church.
ECT CATHOLIC CHURCH & PROTESTANT SECTS: What's the Difference?
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Yeah
The good ole Popebot ;-)
Why do I always think of Exodus 20:3-4 and Leviticus 19:4 when I think of the Catholic Church?
Last edited:
If anything, we copied your doctrines of everlasting punishment, and your lame trinity and christ idolatries. Protestantism copies much of the lameness of Thomas Aquinas, but without the sacraments. Breathing in a vacuum must be hard for you.
And where does the Catholic agreement meet? At the voting of a man in which priests vote for and who you have absolutely no relevance in deciding?
So much for the Spirit in yourself deciding anything.
The Roman Church is a product of men wanting to rule over. There is no more Christ in any of your popes over good Christians.
You can preach what you say all day, Luther and Calvin rebelled against it front and center. The early Christians did not hinge on a papacy- there is no evidence of Christianity being any different from the very personal relationship that Protestant doctrine teaches.
Looks like we have a follower of Dopus Dei.
hating the church is a man made doctrine
I don't hate Catholicism. I actually agree with a lot of things within it.
But
That stops at the alleged infallible succession. It was a good idea turned bad.
Cruciform
New member
...declares a good ole Protbot. :yawn:Yeah
Because your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has taught you to do so.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Last chance:
"In order for your doctrinal opinions to carry any weight whatsoever, please go ahead and demonstrate that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Please post your proof now."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
In the formal decisions of the Magisterium (bishops in communion w/ the pope) of Christ's one historic Church.
Actually, it is the Magisterium (bishops) which elects the pope.
Why would I expect to have any role in electing the Bishop of Rome? The Church is not a democracy, and the pope is not a president. Read the gospels and Acts---laymen are given no "vote" regarding the formation of Christian doctrine or the ordination of bishops in the New Testament. Why would you assume they would have a vote in Christ's one historic Church today?
Again, your assumptions about precisely how the Spirit guides and teaches the faithful are simply wrong.
The anti-Catholic assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.
Ironic that you appeal to "the reformers," since Luther and Calvin couldn't even agree among themselves regarding even the central and defining tenets of the Christian faith! :doh: They possessed no more authority to define or change the doctrines of the Church than did, for example, Arius, Pelagius, or Sabellius before them.
:darwinsm: ...Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Why can't you understand that I offered no doctrinal opinion? Are you just daft have the ability to actually read and reply to what people say?
Cruciform
New member
Then your non-doctrinal opinion is even more irrelevant on a forum called "THEOLOGY Online."
In any case, given that you have been completely unable to establish the doctrinal authority of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect's opinions, the statements in Post #63 above are necessarily and inescapably proven, and your entire approach simply collapses.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
And have you read Institutes of the Christian Religion
Cruciform
New member
Much of it, back when I was a Reformed Protestant. How is that significant?
Why would you not look at it as a theology for Protestantism?
Given your participation of this site, it has probably escaped your notice the many threads do not deal strictly with theology. Even in threads that are dealing with theology, not all posts are theological.
Daft, I'm going with daft. Thanks for playing. But your response highlighted one other significance between the RCC and Protestant churches: Protestants will discuss doctrines at length, Catholic's don't.
Cruciform
New member
Because its author, John Calvin, was one of the principle leaders of "the Protestant Reformation."
Cruciform
New member
Odd in this case, since the stated title of this particular forum is "Exclusively Christian Theology."
Back to Post #92 above.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Vehicular does not mean that every post in every thread is going to be about doctrine nor even always theology in the strictest definition of the word. There are two types of church models proscriptive such a Catholicism, Baptists, Mormons, Jewish and Islamic. There are other churches that are based on relationships and not in rules.
So tell us, does the RCC possess a catechism that proscribes the churches doctrines, that defines sins as mortal or venial, that tells members what they should and shouldn't do?
Cruciform
New member
Here you're discussing an aspect of the theological doctrine of ecclesiology. So much for your opinions "not being doctrinal." Back to Post #92 above.