Cruciform
New member
Sure you have, just like everyone else.
anticatholics: please list the "false doctrines of Catholicism"
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Cruciform
New member
The sources I cite accurately represent my own doctrinal position, and contain plenty of biblical references and discussion.
Cruciform
New member
Wrong, though her position may be termed doctrinally "anti-sectarian".
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
An impossibility for the Romanist.
Can Rome produce an infallible tradition not found in Scripture that has its origins with the apostles? Of course not, which leads to the question:
If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does?
It is not so much that Rome denies the intelligibility and lucidity of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe that Scripture is only intelligible and clear to the magisterium.
Consequently, individual Roman Catholics should not, as they do, appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic communion and the church’s need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes, and once they do that then yes, we will be at an impasse. That situation, however, would be an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture.
As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture.
Roman Catholics find themselves on the horns of an epistemological dilemma and in turn fall into a form of skepticism. By placing a human mediator between God and men they render God’s living word inoperable. One the one hand if their authority is Rome, then Scripture is rendered useless because any interpretation of any passage of Scripture must await adjudication by Rome for one to know what Scripture is saying. Yet, on the other hand, when a Roman Catholic reads Scripture they demonstrate that an infallible magisterium is unnecessary to know the truth. Sadly, Roman Catholics live in a tension that they cannot reconcile.
AMR
Maybe you haven't figured this out yet. Let me spell it out for you. Nobody cares about your sources and links. People are interested in hearing what you have to say.
I've had teachers like you. They stand in front of the class and read from the book. Students hate those classes and have no respect for those teachers. They learn nothing. What people want is somebody to explain what they have read and to discuss it and refine it.
Last edited:
No, she is also inculcated.
She is anti protestant, even though she doesn't really understand what that means.
Cruciform
New member
If you genuinely cared about truth, you certainly would. So much for your transparent pretense at intellectual integrity.
My position is accurately stated in the sources I provided. Your complaint here is nothing more than a desperate Red Herring. Try again.
It isn't my job to teach you. It's your job to properly educate yourself---something at which you've clearly never been even marginally adept, at least with respect to Catholic doctrine and practice.
Maybe you haven't figured this out yet. Let me spell it out for you. Nobody cares what you "want." Do your own homework.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Try again. For example, here and here. Also, the authoritative content of the biblical canon comes immediately to mind, which comes not from "Scripture alone" (or Scripture at all), but from authoritative extra-biblical Tradition.
Who says it doesn't?
Incorrect, since Scripture may be used as AN authority without buying into the patently false 16th-century Protestant assumption that Scripture is the ONLY authority.
So much for your latest poorly-attempted anti-Catholic "argument."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I have refuted your links in the past. You have never made an effort to discuss my comments. In my estimation, you don't care for the truth as you make no effort to defend what you proclaim as truth.
Then why are you on a discussion board?
Aimiel
Well-known member
Since Catholics are clearly NOT Christian, they are anti-Christ.
Cruciform
New member
Cite a single post number in which you actually "refute" any Catholic teaching whatsoever (sorry, but mere disagreement or denial does not qualify as a "refutation").
You're a liar (Prov. 19:5). I've discussed your comments countless times on this forum, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here... I could cite multiplied dozens more as well.
I often analyze the claims and statements of others on this forum, as the above cited posts demonstrate. I also make use of various online sources which I make available for the self-education of genuinely interested and honest readers. From experience, I've observed that you simply do not fall into the latter category, and so I'm really not concerned with whether or not you will in fact take advantage of the available sources. I know very well that you won't. At this point, I post them solely for the benefit of any interested and honest readers who might be following a given thread. In any case, as I've already observed, this persistent whining about the format of my posts is transparently recognizable as the Red Herring Fallacy that it is. Don't bother.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Now go ahead and post your documentary proof for this wholly unsubstantiated claim. :yawn:
Post 518 in the "Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin thread" which has been deleted as far as I can tell. Look up a few posts in this thread t where you ignored my comments regarding a Catholic Answers post.
Your only answer is to repost your links and claim I don't have the authority to question your church. In terms of addressing what I have actually posted, you have never attempted to discuss anything.
But you do not discuss anything regarding challenges to RCC doctrine and tradition. That is what people want to discuss.
Cruciform
New member
Nope, you "forgot" what I observed in my previous post:
"...sorry, but mere disagreement or denial does not qualify as a "refutation."
Try again. Just one other post.
Rather, you lack the authority to impose the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect in place of the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.
Already categorically refuted in the very post to which you're replying. Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
when it goes unanswered, then it is in fact a refutation. I raised a point of disagreement, you made no meaningful response thus my point stands as unchallenged. Simple rules of debate.
But then I have never attempted to impose anything on you or anybody else. I have raised questions that you have not answered. I have stayed what I belive and why. I have stated why I don't belive what you do. I challenge you to find a post where I have attempted to impose my theology on you or anybody else.
Not at all....since many of them have confessed the real Jesus Christ as their savior. Bad doctrine does not make one an anti-Christ.
Cruciform
New member
Nonsense. It rather merely boils down to a bare appeal to authority---in your case, to some imagined doctrinal authority of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. However, given that you have more than once admitted on this forum that your chosen Protestant sect is NOT, in fact, that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), this supposed "authority" of your preferred man-made sect can never each beyond the basic level of mere human opinion ("the traditions of men"), and so is in fact no genuine authority at all. So much for your claimed "refutation."
You are proposing and propagating your sect's interpretations and opinions as "what the Bible teaches" and as "Christian doctrine." You put forth your personal doctrinal preferences as "truth." In this way, you are indeed seeking to impose your theological opinions (as though they actually possessed some sort of genuine authority) as that which others ought to accept as binding Christian doctrine. In short, you're presuming to try and replace the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church with the assumptions, interpretations, and opinions (traditions) of your preferred recently-invented, man-made sect.
See every single post in which you suggest that your sect's traditions of men should be accepted as binding Christian doctrine in place of the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I make no appeal to the imagined authority of any man made religion including yours. There is only one Authority regarding matters if faith. My original arguments stands.
This rings false. On a discussion forum, such as thus, people bring opposing points of view to the discussion and hash them out. That is not imposing anything, it is discussing differences.
If you look at the paragraph above you will see yourself clearly reflected in that which you accuse me of. The only real difference between us is we see as the ultimate authority. You choose a bunch if men in Rome while I choose God.
In any case, you have yet to rebut any refutal of catholic doctrine I have posted and you have yet to produce a post where I impose theology on anybody. Despite your protestations otherwise, your position has not improved.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I'm not really an anti-catholic (what does that even mean?), but there are points I disagree with the Latin Rite about.
Real Presence - this doctrine can be supported from Scripture, as long as you don't actually understand what you're reading. The "body" and "blood" in both major passages on the subject, which the reader is enjoined to "discern," is the assembled "body" of Christ - the people. Not the bread. Not the wine.
Apostolic Succession - first, the "successors" are bishops; not apostles. Bad naming convention. That isn't my objection, though. The objection is that the "succession" supposes that doctrine is safeguarded by a handing down of doctrine from one bishop to the next. Nice idea, but it just hasn't happened. We have records of popes who not only deposed their predecessors, but excommunicated them, sometimes posthumously. The current "bishop of Rome" is from South America. And this guy is supposed to have received the uncorrupted doctrine of the church from his predecessor? Quit pulling my leg.
Original Sin - the Augustinian formulation of Original Sin as being something that individuals are guilty of because of their singular ancestor's misdeed, or (as catholic encyclopedia puts it) a "hereditary stain with which we are born." Rubbish. Guilt is not imputed from many generations ago to anyone personally, not is there a need for any such hokum. Rather, the lingering effects of sin from our fellow men create an environs where nobody can fail to sin. That can be observed and measured, and passes muster on common sense. "Original sin" cannot say the same.
Sacraments Cause Grace - Grace is unmerited favor. How exactly can you believe that doing certain things causes it to rest on you, if it is really unmerited?
I guess that's enough for now.
Jarrod
Real Presence - this doctrine can be supported from Scripture, as long as you don't actually understand what you're reading. The "body" and "blood" in both major passages on the subject, which the reader is enjoined to "discern," is the assembled "body" of Christ - the people. Not the bread. Not the wine.
Apostolic Succession - first, the "successors" are bishops; not apostles. Bad naming convention. That isn't my objection, though. The objection is that the "succession" supposes that doctrine is safeguarded by a handing down of doctrine from one bishop to the next. Nice idea, but it just hasn't happened. We have records of popes who not only deposed their predecessors, but excommunicated them, sometimes posthumously. The current "bishop of Rome" is from South America. And this guy is supposed to have received the uncorrupted doctrine of the church from his predecessor? Quit pulling my leg.
Original Sin - the Augustinian formulation of Original Sin as being something that individuals are guilty of because of their singular ancestor's misdeed, or (as catholic encyclopedia puts it) a "hereditary stain with which we are born." Rubbish. Guilt is not imputed from many generations ago to anyone personally, not is there a need for any such hokum. Rather, the lingering effects of sin from our fellow men create an environs where nobody can fail to sin. That can be observed and measured, and passes muster on common sense. "Original sin" cannot say the same.
Sacraments Cause Grace - Grace is unmerited favor. How exactly can you believe that doing certain things causes it to rest on you, if it is really unmerited?
I guess that's enough for now.
Jarrod