Catholic defense

[CCWoody]

As for protestant churches, their theology of the "invisible church" was specifically designed to justify and cover for their schism and break-away from the universal church.

Protestants are trying to hide our sins with our theology??? What an indulgence that must be to be able to do things in your theology to cover up sins. Its not nice to characterize Protestant theology as being some kind of sacramental pennance or indulgence to try and hide our sins.

Didn't the Reformers reject the Roman Catholic church in part over indulgences? (that question is not meant to be answered)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Show me where the true Church of Christ agrees with you in her history on your doctrines of for example Mary was not a perpetual virgin, surely the Church you believe was Christ through the ages will back you up, they too must have the insight and wisdom that you possess, show me where the church teaches your doctrine of belief.

Well, IF you just assume that "the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints" is a political, physical, institutional denomination, and furthermore, if you assume that it happens to be YOUR institutional denomination; IF you assume that the Apostles entrusted some corpus of unwritten teachings to such a political, physical, institutional denomination, and it's YOUR insitutional denomination, etc., etc. - then you might have a point.... But not everyone agrees with that chain of assumptions.


Regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, as I stated, I do not accept or reject this teaching and therefore cannot be a Roman Catholic and stand outside that particular Denomination as a "separated brethern" at best (worse, because I'm NOT ignorant - I'm informed but don't accept). Yup, you are wise to pick up on this particular teaching that I don't embrace as Doctrine because of all the things I listed as being in that category, you chose to discuss the one which has the best Tradition behind it - clearly, this concept was embraced broadly in the early church. Cool. I therefore accept it as something many (probably most) Christians in the early church believed. Such, for me, does not Doctrine make. My "norma normans" is not the beliefs of some Christians, it's the Bible. There's NOTHING in the Bible that teaches this - or even remotely suggests it; in fact, as you well know and has been discussed here ad nasium, there's a verse that makes it difficult (albeit not impossible). I'm willing to embrace it as a valid interpretation (although I think not the best or even a very good one) but such is not sufficient for Doctrine, in my opinion.

For my unseparated brothers and sisters in the RCC, it's True and Doctrine because the Church has so declared it - it is a part of her own chosen infallible Tradition, as affirmed by her own infallible Magisterium. I think the Protestants all "get" that; at least I do.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Many leaders have gone against the word of God - such as Arius, Nestorius and many others.

Ever heard the proverb, "The victor writes the history?"

However the Church as a whole has never gone astray, and has always taught the essential true gospel.

Well, it seems altogether possible to me that if someone were to ask the Roman Catholic Denomination if the Roman Catholic Denomination has ever gone astray and if it has always taught the true gospel, then the conclusion might be predictable...


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[Iollain]

What is the One True Chruch?

Here they are, Jesus is praying for them:


Jhn 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:


Jhn 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.


Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Jhn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.


Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.


Jhn 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.


Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.


Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.


Jhn 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.


Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].


Jhn 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.


Jhn 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.


Jhn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.


Jhn 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.


Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.


Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


Jhn 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.


Jhn 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.


Jhn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.


Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


Jhn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.


Jhn 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.


Jhn 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare [it]: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

 

[Iollain]

Would it not be considered plagerizing, when taking someone else's work and making it your own??

Your talking about the Bible i presume? Yes it would be plagerizing.

 

[Deb7777]

Well, IF you just assume that "the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints" is a political, physical, institutional denomination, and furthermore, if you assume that it happens to be YOUR institutional denomination; IF you assume that the Apostles entrusted some corpus of unwritten teachings to such a political, physical, institutional denomination, and it's YOUR insitutional denomination, etc., etc. - then you might have a point.... But not everyone agrees with that chain of assumptions.


Regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, as I stated, I do not accept or reject this teaching and therefore cannot be a Roman Catholic and stand outside that particular Denomination as a "separated brethern" at best (worse, because I'm NOT ignorant - I'm informed but don't accept). Yup, you are wise to pick up on this particular teaching that I don't embrace as Doctrine because of all the things I listed as being in that category, you chose to discuss the one which has the best Tradition behind it - clearly, this concept was embraced broadly in the early church. Cool. I therefore accept it as something many (probably most) Christians in the early church believed. Such, for me, does not Doctrine make. My "norma normans" is not the beliefs of some Christians, it's the Bible. There's NOTHING in the Bible that teaches this - or even remotely suggests it; in fact, as you well know and has been discussed here ad nasium, there's a verse that makes it difficult (albeit not impossible). I'm willing to embrace it as a valid interpretation (although I think not the best or even a very good one) but such is not sufficient for Doctrine, in my opinion.

For my unseparated brothers and sisters in the RCC, it's True and Doctrine because the Church has so declared it - it is a part of her own chosen infallible Tradition, as affirmed by her own infallible Magisterium. I think the Protestants all "get" that; at least I do.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

Don't you think the Church from the beginning could have taught true doctrine and pass on truth instead of now being refuted by christians saying all those doctrines the Christians believe through the centuries were wrong, why even have a Church if it cannot teach correctly what christians should believe. Either the church from the beginning was correct in the doctrines it pass down to its members or the "Church" of today has the wisdom and guidance that those who were closest to the apostles did not. For doctrines outside of mainstream christianity for centuries to be correct, the Church from the beginning had to be teaching error, for that to be correct, Jesus was not with his Church but left it it completely in the hands of man to twist and distort what really is correct doctrine to teach to the faithful. You can believe that if you want I choose not to.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Don't you think the Church from the beginning could have taught true doctrine and pass on truth instead of now being refuted by christians saying all those doctrines the Christians believe through the centuries were wrong, why even have a Church if it cannot teach correctly what christians should believe.

Ephasis is mine and not that of the original poster...

Could...

Certainly! Joseph Smith could be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, charged with restoring the Apostolic Tradition not written down in the Bible but which the early Christians repudiated and rejected, thus loosing their divine Authority - just as the LDS claims. Could be.

Could is tough...


Two questions:

1. How do we evaluate such claims, those things that "could be?" On the basis of WHAT? Should they be held accountable for their self claims? To what? Is there a higher Authority - embraced by all Christians of all positions - one we all accept as From God - that could be used as the Canon here? The Rule, the Standard, the Plumbline, the Canon? Protestants say "yes" and look to the Bible for that rule (it's called "Sola Scriptura"). Others look to themselves, to the Traditon and Leadership of the Denomination making the claims.

2. Is "could" a solid foundation for the establsihment of Doctrine? "Could" Jesus have been 10 feet tall, had pink hair and loved to eat raw fish? Certainly! Is that a solid foundation for the establishment of Doctrine, especially Doctrine that will be used to determine salvation? Is something Doctrine because it COULD be true? According to whom? According to WHAT? And if the "COULD BE" of one denomination is valid for Doctrine because that denomination so claims, what about the "COULD BE" of another denomination that so claims that?

Either the church from the beginning was correct in the doctrines it pass down to its members or the "Church" of today has the wisdom and guidance that those who were closest to the apostles did not. For doctrines outside of mainstream christianity for centuries to be correct, the Church from the beginning had to be teaching error, for that to be correct, Jesus was not with his Church but left it it completely in the hands of man to twist and distort what really is correct doctrine to teach to the faithful. You can believe that if you want I choose not to.

You can choose to embrace whatever you want there...

But, if we assume that the church of Christ is not the "one holy catholic apostolic church, the communion of saints" but rather a political, instutional denomination, and if we assume it's yours and not mine, and if we assume that your denomination (but not mine) has been entrusted with the "depository" of things from the Apostles, and that your denomination (not mine) has a Magisterium that cannot err - it is infallible, then your position makes a lot of sense. But there are a number of assumptions there...

And, I would submit, it makes you wonder why God gave us a Bible?
It's called the Canon. "Canon" means Rule, Judge, Plumbline, Standard. A yardstick that tells you if something is straight or not. IF the RCC is infallible, iIF the RCC has all this secret stuff from the Apostles, IF the RCC' chosen Tradition is correct and infallible, IF the leadership of the RCC is divinely appointed and infallible, then why have a Bible? Why do we need a Canon at all? Indeed, read some of the posts around CF regarding the Bible written by our unseparated full brothers and sisters in Christ...

Again, like post Protestants, I FULLY and eagerly embrace the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints - I just don't claim that my particular denomination is IT (or any other, for that matter). I FULLY embrace the value and importance of Tradition (and much else) - much of it idential to the Tradition embraced by the RCC - I just don't considere it EQUAL to the Bible and RCC in Authority, I consider human interpretations and applications of the Bible to be accountable, under the Bible - not above it. There's where the disagreements stem from, IMO...


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[Deb7777]

Ephasis is mine and not that of the original poster...

Could...

Certainly! Joseph Smith could be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, charged with restoring the Apostolic Tradition not written down in the Bible but which the early Christians repudiated and rejected, thus loosing their divine Authority - just as the LDS claims. Could be.

Could is tough...


Two questions:

1. How do we evaluate such claims, those things that "could be?" On the basis of WHAT? Should they be held accountable for their self claims? To what? Is there a higher Authority - embraced by all Christians of all positions - one we all accept as From God - that could be used as the Canon here? The Rule, the Standard, the Plumbline, the Canon? Protestants say "yes" and look to the Bible for that rule (it's called "Sola Scriptura"). Others look to themselves, to the Traditon and Leadership of the Denomination making the claims.

2. Is "could" a solid foundation for the establsihment of Doctrine? "Could" Jesus have been 10 feet tall, had pink hair and loved to eat raw fish? Certainly! Is that a solid foundation for the establishment of Doctrine, especially Doctrine that will be used to determine salvation? Is something Doctrine because it COULD be true? According to whom? According to WHAT? And if the "COULD BE" of one denomination is valid for Doctrine because that denomination so claims, what about the "COULD BE" of another denomination that so claims that?





You can choose to embrace whatever you want there...

But, if we assume that the church of Christ is not the "one holy catholic apostolic church, the communion of saints" but rather a political, instutional denomination, and if we assume it's yours and not mine, and if we assume that your denomination (but not mine) has been entrusted with the "depository" of things from the Apostles, and that your denomination (not mine) has a Magisterium that cannot err - it is infallible, then your position makes a lot of sense. But there are a number of assumptions there...

And, I would submit, it makes you wonder why God gave us a Bible?
It's called the Canon. "Canon" means Rule, Judge, Plumbline, Standard. A yardstick that tells you if something is straight or not. IF the RCC is infallible, iIF the RCC has all this secret stuff from the Apostles, IF the RCC' chosen Tradition is correct and infallible, IF the leadership of the RCC is divinely appointed and infallible, then why have a Bible? Why do we need a Canon at all? Indeed, read some of the posts around CF regarding the Bible written by our unseparated full brothers and sisters in Christ...

Again, like post Protestants, I FULLY and eagerly embrace the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints - I just don't claim that my particular denomination is IT (or any other, for that matter). I FULLY embrace the value and importance of Tradition (and much else) - much of it idential to the Tradition embraced by the RCC - I just don't considere it EQUAL to the Bible and RCC in Authority, I consider human interpretations and applications of the Bible to be accountable, under the Bible - not above it. There's where the disagreements stem from, IMO...


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

Lets keep this simple, show me the doctrine where the Church teaches Mary was not always a virgin. What does the Church have to say about this and when?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I respect the fact that you have no interest in debating this, however if it is the one true church as you and the other Roman Catholics on this board seem to believe then it should be very easy to prove from Scripture

Ok, I asked about plagerizing.

Since the Epistles are written for the One Church Christ created, and His Apostles wrote for the Church, then all other christian denominations MUST remove the Epistles, because the scripture was 'stolen' by Luther and used in a manner that it was not meant to be used. OUTSIDE of the Church.

The Epistles are not only historical accounts of the Church ...but they are the property of the LAWS of the Church. Not to be reduced in interpretation by just anyone.

Compare that to the constitution. Should we all interpret it as we deem fit?
YET many today are doing just that...and dividing the USA. Not good...yet once again, when men's failed opinions break down the meanings of such laws.

Refer to post one, where it states...THIS doctrine.

Now, ppl say proove it WITH scripture...and scripture itself prooves itself both historically by ownership... and by what it states.

For one thing scripture says we are COMMANDED TO KEEP THE ORAL AND WRITTEN.

No one here has kept the oral, except Catholicism...which altho the name misleads ppl...it is called Tradition. Which means something that is done without change.

AND again, the scripture does NOT state that ONLY scripture is necessary. So this argues against sola scriptura.
And those who claim sola sciptura are not adhering to scripture itself.

I pointed it out b4, and continue to request what all Jesus taught the Apostles for the 40 days and nights He remained with them b4 ascending.

NONE of what Jesus taught was written down. I believe He made sure that the Apostles would not write them...because He has and would always test humanity.

But the Apostles kept all of it, and taught their "heirarchy"...Which BTW deacons, bishops and elders aka priests are indeed mentioned within the canon and epistles handed down for Christ's Church.

Ahhhhh, but Tradition, the ever so hated concept has been the ONE substance that NO other church that protested the Catholic Church can have.

DO we actually think the Lord wanted a division??

AND someone mentioned something else....which I will go thru.

DOES GOD WANT US TO STAY UNDER A CHURCH HIERARCHY?

I suspect we dont 'want to' follow His Church in exacting, so we all are entitled to our own interpretations, and therefore if there are 6 billion different ideas of scripture, then thats ok too...as long as ppl read it. Right?

Wrong!

YES, we are supposed to HUMBLE ourselves and worship God and remain within the walls of the ONE CHURCH CHRIST built.

When has God become a democracy?

After umpteen thousand split opinions, ppl are now taking it upon themselves to give interpretation that suits them...vs what God stated.

It says to TEST all things.
The results are in.

Test of the first Church; It has been intact for as long as it has stood. It is united under one leader, who has the authority to discern scripture, and lead in unity. It is NOT a democracy, and does NOT tolerate anything that is NOT Tradition. It will not change. Any past changes were dismissed, and heretics were removed.

Test of the church after; it has splintered apart so many times that someone somewhere always knows better how to discern what their opinion of scripture means, leaving so many abused doctrines now that it is not funny. The church that broke off the first, changed and removed canonical scripture {The Bible even states NOT to do this}, the second church has caused bitterness against the Church Christ Himself built, and in due discourse, has caused so much quarreling that it caused disobedience to the Church and made itself the leader of quarrels. Which is anti scripture. The second church watered down and or removed the sacraments, until we have the churches today who do not follow the original Church so much so that Christ is no longer considered God. After all, the exact wording is not in scripture...right?
YET the fact remains that the Apostles considered Jesus God, and they would know....so check that off as Tradition.

NOW...the tests are done, we see the results..

Clearly Church One has remained the same, even keeping the earliest Church fathers works, outside of canon.

And equally obvious is church two has caused the multitude to hate, and refuse submission to Christ's Church.

I cannot see the Lord ever ordaining mass confusion.... nor can I see Him wanting the quarrels and the decisive divisions.





If pride stands in your way in accepting CHRIST'S Church, then this is something to consider.

IS pride the reason? Is it difficult to submit? Then seek the reason why...and the rebelousness against authority. Which ensued all the divisions since and of Luther...the fact that everyone wants their opinion received, and the disgust for submission.

How do we know when we are proud?

Are divisions and quarrels good? No, and never. YET today they are not only acceptable, but well recieved.
High fiving one another for the best insult to catholicism...and yet you know not what you do.

Why did the Apostles protect the Church ? Which is clear in their writings, and their travels to Churches who were having problems especially with the Jews. AND the earliest heretics. NOT one APOSTLE stood down and said to any heretic.."You are right...Christ only said his Spirit would stay with the Church, perhaps He is sick of it, and is inconstant...ya know like humans, and now He thinks other doctrines should also be accepted....so go ahead...after all we speak with wayyy too much authority and all of the doctrines should be accepted...O, and just ignore St John going on about the intro of new doctrines, and Paul too. After all..God could be now ordaining a new church. Who really wants to submit to what WE THOUGHT was the pillar of truth?
We may have been wrong in thinking God was the foundation of this Church.
SO if you want to not marry and abstain from meats because YOU THINK all flesh is evil...then hey, go for it dude..who are we after all? Free thinking man! YOU go bud."

I apologize for the above paragraph....read it again.

I think the Apostles would also have fought Luther tooth and nail. In fact...St John would have written more about Luther had he lived at his time.

AS it is.... what he wrote STANDS FOR ALL TIME.

DO NOT accept strange doctrine. PERIOD!

 

[WarriorAngel]

BTW...the quarrels, and the attacks on Catholicism as yet...proove my point.


Mankind never changes.

I said I love my seperated brethren...I meant it, but heed the words. I admonish only in love.

I believe all are saved by the Lord's mercy, yet I also believe everyone SHOULD want and thirst for the Lord's truth.

Peace!

 

[CCWoody]

... the scripture was 'stolen' by Luther!

I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that we Protestants have no right to the Scripture except that get it from the RCC. I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that Protestants are thiefs for having Bibles. I was unaware that the Bible was not to be free for all.

 

[GraceInHim]

BTW...the quarrels, and the attacks on Catholicism as yet...proove my point.


Mankind never changes.

I said I love my seperated brethren...I meant it, but heed the words. I admonish only in love.

I believe all are saved by the Lord's mercy, yet I also believe everyone SHOULD want and thirst for the Lord's truth.

Peace!

Hi WA, or whoever wants to answer this,

Just curious, I hear a lot of the word "anti-Catholic" in threads - I undertand your Church is debated on here often, certain threads come up mean spirited which are closed - but if someone disagrees - why would anyone call them anti-anything?

Saying this, you started this thread and did you not think members here who disagree would come in and debate your OP?

Just asking because I see this a lot on all sides - but I will say the only anti thing I hear is from certain Catholic members - and it really is not right - we can agree to disagree.

love ya
Gracie

 

[cristoiglesia]

I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that we Protestants have no right to the Scripture except that get it from the RCC. I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that Protestants are thiefs for having Bibles. I was unaware that the Bible was not to be free for all.

I think that Catholics should take it away from Protestants until they agree to quit misusing it.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[WarriorAngel]

I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that we Protestants have no right to the Scripture except that get it from the RCC. I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that Protestants are thiefs for having Bibles. I was unaware that the Bible was not to be free for all.

The Bible is sacred and should NOT be used and abused ..yet it is. The scripture, especially the Epistles were written FOR THE CHURCH, and NOT to be discerned by every person on the street.

Keep the Gospels.. But dont keep the Epistles. They pertain ONLY to the Church. Read them to discover what the Apostles expected of the CHURCH they were building. ...BUT DO NOT ever state Luther gave them to the world. That is a falsehood. Worse yet...the NEW printing press brot the Bible to the world..NOT Luther, he just cashed in at the right time.

Lutherans cannot claim being part of the First Church.
They PROTESTED Christ's Church. Seperated, and made a new Church, made new doctrines, threw out canon, created new 'lines' {lies} in scripture...all in all...was just bad news.
Stirs arguments against the Catholic Church, blasphemed the Spirit when questioning His ability to stand behind the walls of the first Church.


I am sorry...but it is NOT going to happen. Lutherans are not part of the first Church..they broke away. IF they submitted to Peter's See..then they would be again.

Yes Catholicism CAN absolutely be prooven as the first...

Even the attempt to change history cannot be succeeded by satan. THE gates of hell shall NOT prevail.
ALL the first documents have remained within HER walls.

Read history..and discover the earliest Church fathers and what they said.

They are also just as much record to Truth as is the scripture.

BTW, you will see they mention the Roman Church. And stand behind the Roman See.

 

[Annabel Lee]

WarriorAngel,
You are baiting the non-Catholics. No question about it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Hi WA, or whoever wants to answer this,

Just curious, I hear a lot of the word "anti-Catholic" in threads - I undertand your Church is debated on here often, certain threads come up mean spirited which are closed - but if someone disagrees - why would anyone call them anti-anything?

Saying this, you started this thread and did you not think members here who disagree would come in and debate your OP?

Just asking because I see this a lot on all sides - but I will say the only anti thing I hear is from certain Catholic members - and it really is not right - we can agree to disagree.

love ya
Gracie

I suppose the use of anti means strongly opposed to.

If there is not opposition, then they are WITH.
Altho not sure I said Anti Catholic...I may have.

The term is loosely translated to...those who are very opposed to the Church...so much so they are not seeking answers on how Catholics believe...but in general attack the Church on the basis they feel they are correct.

It is stronger to say that than to say those who oppose.

Anti Catholics hate Catholicism.

Hey whats up?

 

[Albion]

I suppose the use of anti means strongly opposed to.

If there is not opposition, then they are WITH.
Altho not sure I said Anti Catholic...I may have.

The term is loosely translated to...those who are very opposed to the Church...so much so they are not seeking answers on how Catholics believe...but in general attack the Church on the basis they feel they are correct.

It is stronger to say that than to say those who oppose.

Anti Catholics hate Catholicism.

Hey whats up?

Just keep in mind that we virtually never read of "anti-Lutherans" or "anti-Calvinists" or "anti-Methodists" here--even though there are plenty of posts expressing real animosity towards Luther, etc. This should be enough to rebut any attempt to whitewash the name calling of "anti-Catholic" or even "non-Catholic".

Lets all just decide not to use any of these terms. OK?

 

[Albion]

I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that we Protestants have no right to the Scripture except that get it from the RCC. I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that Protestants are thiefs for having Bibles. I was unaware that the Bible was not to be free for all.

What you are responding to probably is just a modern example of the same mentality that in former times labored in every way to keep the Bible from the common people.

 

[GraceInHim]

I suppose the use of anti means strongly opposed to.

If there is not opposition, then they are WITH.
Altho not sure I said Anti Catholic...I may have.

The term is loosely translated to...those who are very opposed to the Church...so much so they are not seeking answers on how Catholics believe...but in general attack the Church on the basis they feel they are correct.

It is stronger to say that than to say those who oppose.

Anti Catholics hate Catholicism.

Hey whats up?

Thanks - one thing, I do not hate anyone, even people who are not Christians, and no, I do not see you use it the word anti.

Just wish debating can be done with respect more - maybe we cam learn more about your Church - it seems more is done to defend or oppose, rather then discuss and leave threads at peace.

What up you too

see - me and you just did this - (discussed and peace)

 

[Annabel Lee]

I think that Catholics should take it away from Protestants until they agree to quit misusing it.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

We should also throw them in a dark dungeon until they repent of all their sins.
And if they refuse, we burn 'em at the stake.