Catholic Heresy (for the record)

notuptome · Feb 12, 2015

You are manufacturing an argument from bias and not from scripture. You cannot make the binding and forgiving of sin a command. There is no support to build this doctrine.

You simply will not address how one is saved in the Roman Catholic system. Oh...wait they never are...it would be presumptuous to conclude one could be saved with certainty.

So lets go back to the circular argument that the RCC has the authority to bind and forgive sin because Peter received some magical keys to a mystical kingdom from Christ. Christ deemed it a good idea to build a church that would prevail against the gates of hell on a pebble.

You have yet to establish and argument of merit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

fordman · Feb 12, 2015

KenAllan said:

KenAllen, It is obvious your knowledge of Catholic Doctrine is very limited, so let me help you out. Adam and Eve, by disobeying God's command not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen.2:16-17; 3:1-19), brought sin and death into this world. Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition hold that Adam's sin has been passed down from generation to generation. It is not simply that the world around us has been corrupted by Adam's sin in such a way that all those who have followed have found it nearly impossible not to sin, but that our very nature was corrupted in such a way that life without sin is impossible. This corruption of our nature, passed down from father to child, is what we call original sin.

Now pay close attention here....Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition, however, also hold that Mary and Jesus were born without Original Sin. Yet how can that be, if Original Sin is physically passed from generation to generation? The answer is different in each case. You are correct to say that Jesus was born without sin. He was born without Original Sin because He was conceived without Original Sin. The Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ is also the Son of God. In the Roman Catholic tradition, Original Sin is, as I mentioned, passed down from father to child; the transmission occurs through the sexual act. Since Christ's Father is God Himself, there was no Original Sin to be passed down. Conceived by the Holy Spirit through Mary's willing cooperation at the Annunciation, Christ was not subject to Adam's sin or its effects.

Ah yes.... Once again your limited knowledge of Catholic Doctrine is proven here. Let me show your errors. The Blessed Virgin Mary, too, was born without Original Sin because she was conceived without original sin. We call her preservation from Original Sin her Immaculate Conception. Mary, however, was preserved from Original Sin in a different way from Christ. While Christ is the Son of God, Mary's father, St. Joachim, was a man, and like all men descended from Adam, he was subject to Original Sin. Under normal circumstances, Joachim would have passed that sin on to Mary through her conception in the womb of St.Anne. (Mary's mother)

However, Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God. That "singular grace and privilege" was granted to Mary because of God's foreknowledge that she would, at the Annunciation, consent to be the mother of His Son. Mary had free will; she could have said no; but God knew that she would not. And so, "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race," God preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin that had been mankind's condition since the Fall of Adam and Eve. Now keep in mind KenAllen, It's important to note that Mary's preservation from Original Sin was not necessary; God did it of His great love for her, and through the merits of Christ's redemptive action. Since Original Sin is passed down from father to child, Christ would have been conceived without Original Sin even if Mary had been born with Original Sin. Soooooo, the common Protestant objection that Mary's Immaculate Conception would necessarily require an immaculate conception of her parents, and of theirs, all the way back to Adam is based on a misunderstanding of how Original Sin is transmitted.

For Christ to be born without Original Sin, it was not necessary for Mary to be born without Original Sin. God's preservation of Mary from Original Sin was a pure act of love. Mary was redeemed by Christ; but her redemption was accomplished by God at the moment of her conception, in anticipation of the redemption of man that Christ would work through His Death upon the Cross.

Wrong....which I have just proven.

Please show some imprimatur documents to prove this claim. Until then, you should not spread lies. You do believe lying to be a sin...do you not? I can look past your fallacies of Catholic Doctrine due to your ignorance of it, but God may not.

Once again, Please show some imprimatur documents to prove this claim. Until then, you should not spread lies. You do believe lying to be a sin...do you not? I can look past your fallacies of Catholic Doctrine due to your ignorance of it, but God may not. You should really stop to think before posting!

The Catholic Church has been around for over two thousand years mi amigo. She is the largest Christian Church in the world with over 1.2 billion members, one fifth of the worlds population! I am still awaiting your answer to my question, or anyone else for that matter. If it was not Jesus Christ that started the Catholic Church, then who did? Also, you are a believer of the bible, correct? Do you refure to Mary as Blessed like it says in Luke 1:48? If not...why not???

Pax tecum

"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

notuptome said:

Another failure to answer.

You are mixing two scriptures " bind in heaven" and " forgive retain sins" presumably because you have not even done me the courtesy of reading them

I can only assume you have no idea what those scriptures mean, don't worry it is a Protestant blind spot I noticed when asking questions overa decade ago. They are happy to discount RCC view, without noticing they are then cutting loose two important scriptures and giving them no meaning at all.

I had to wade through all this anticatholic nonsense to realise none of the evangelical or Protestant positions make sense in the harsh light of day, like your discounting of real presence on the basis of what is permitted to eat in mosaic law, when Jesus clarifies that in excellent fashion in mark 7:19

Anyway, I came here to learn what others meant by some of these scriptures, to discover they do not know.
Like the evangelicals I knew, they are long on anticatholic rhetoric, will twist any belief to make their weak arguments more robust, and worst of all few like me ever question the nonsense used to defend such hatred - they all assume that someone else knows why RCC position is wrong, because none of them can ever explain it, and the words they put in Luther's mouth for the most part are beliefs he never held. They assume he hated RCC when in practice he had utmost respect for it, and never wanted a schism. Just a new broom to sweep it clean.

RCC belief on salvation is well explained in the catechism, for once you can go and read it to discover that most of the nonsense you attribute to RCC is not what it believes, the rest is justifiable.

But as I showed you in proverbs, your brand of private interpretation is forbidden! It is hard to understand Protestant positions because they are so inconsistent, so varied it needs tens of thousands of denominations to cover them, and even then some find they need to go it alone, because their version is not covered by the rest. What chance one mans belief set, different to almost all other Christians is the true church, all one of him!! Now that is an arrogant position to hold!

I will discuss other things if ever anyone shows me how their version of Christianity puts the two scriptures I point into action, because the only one I am aware of is RCC

AgeofKnowledge · Feb 13, 2015

Obviously not ALL because mine made sense. *grin*.

mikeuk said:

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

AgeofKnowledge said:

It was a personal statement! My conclusion from what I read after being a member of mainstream protestant,a couple of evangelical groups, then RCC having studied for a decade, dismantling a lot of the myths, I am not forcing it on anyone else or even promoting it. You are welcome to believe what you will.

But perhaps you can answer my question?

Protestants dislike the RCC understanding of keys based in Davidic kingdom stewardship Isaiah 22 and elsewhere (which incidentally models a similar role in egyptian kingdom/ joseph etc) given to peter as symbol of office.

But my question is - if you discount that - what then, do you make of the powers of binding and loosing matthew 18:18 and for example later forgive or retaining sins John 20:23? Who then was jesus giving such powers? and how are those powers exercised and when? In chopping out peter all the protestants I have met then seem to pretend Matthew 18:18 no longer exists, they give it no meaning at all.

It is unlikely I will ask again, I have answered many others questions, but none ever answer mine, preferring anti catholic rhetoric. And I hate the hostility in places like this, it is surely not representative of how christian charity should be.

AgeofKnowledge · Feb 13, 2015

The reason why they dislike that RCC teaching is because it's not true. Contrary to what Roman Catholics are taught, the papal office did not originate with Peter. In fact, it was centuries before the Bishop of Rome attempted to dominate the rest of the Church, and many centuries more before this primacy was generally accepted.

Leo the Great's letter to Havian in 449 AD was not accepted until the Council of Chalcedon had approved it and "[Pope] Leo himself acknowledged that his treatise could not become a rule of faith till it was confirmed by the bishops."

There were eight councils of the Church before the schism in 1054 split it into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. None of these eight councils was called by the Bishop of Rome nor was any papal office in existence. Instead the Roman emperor, who also put his stamp of approval upon their decrees placing them into Roman law, convened the councils.

In fact, it wasn't until the Easter Synod of 680 AD, that an ecclesiastical body asserted the primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church; however, this was not an ecumenical council of the entire Church so its decision was not generally accepted.

Sadly, history was rewritten by the Roman Catholic Church and historical documents forged to lend support to their position. The first of these bold forgeries was The Donation of Constantine. It was followed by pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which were early papal decrees allegedly compiled by Archbishop Isidore (560-636) but actually fabricated in the ninth century. These frauds became the foundation for much "tradition" still relied upon today. The Isidorian Decretals involved about a hundred concocted decrees allegedly promulgated by the earliest popes, along with counterfeit writings of supposed Church authorities and synods.

These fabrications were just what Nicholas I (858-67) needed to justify his claims that the popes "held the place of God on earth" with absolute authority over kings, including even the right to "command massacres" of those who opposed them-all in the name of Christ. The popes who followed Nicholas were only too happy to emulate his ways, and each of them used his predecessors' actions to justify his own, thus building an ever-larger case for infallibility, but upon a fraudulent foundation.

The doctrines built upon these forgeries became so interwoven into Catholicism that even after the hoax was exposed the popes were reluctant to make the necessary corrections. Pope after infallible pope endorsed the counterfeit. To make a clean break from centuries of accumulated lies would tear apart the very fabric of Roman Catholicism. Pope Pius IX relied upon the fraud, though it had already been exposed for three centuries, to build his case for pressuring the bishops to make papal infallibility an official dogma at Vatican I. The testimony of history conclusively refutes both apostolic succession and papal infallibility.

As Peter de Rosa, a devout Catholic, stated:

"It may jolt them [Catholics] to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Mattthew 16: 18] and the pope. Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants.

Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers or the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead... For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith-or the Lord in whom Peter has faith which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.

...not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him... There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office. So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter... The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels [though it wasn't there]." Reference: Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Chrirc The Dark Side of the Papacy (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp. 24-25.

Read: https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

mikeuk said:

But perhaps you can answer my question?

Protestants dislike the RCC understanding of keys based in Davidic kingdom stewardship Isaiah 22 and elsewhere (which incidentally models a similar role in egyptian kingdom/ joseph etc) given to peter as symbol of office.

But my question is - if you discount that - what then, do you make of the powers of binding and loosing matthew 18:18 and for example later forgive or retaining sins John 20:23? Who then was jesus giving such powers? and how are those powers exercised and when? In chopping out peter all the protestants I have met then seem to pretend Matthew 18:18 no longer exists, they give it no meaning at all.

It is unlikely I will ask again, I have answered many others questions, but none ever answer mine, preferring anti catholic rhetoric. And I hate the hostility in places like this, it is surely not representative of how christian charity should be.

Click to expand...

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

AgeofKnowledge said:

And in all those words you have failed to answer my question at all.

You simply defend your contention against papal succession - and my suggestion is you say "I think it is not true" rather than "it is not true" because many extremely well read scholars disagree with you, so clearly it is a valid viewpoint.

You also ignore an obvious fact of what the church fathers did not say! - Whilst they argue from time to time with a decision or edict, not one of them challenges the relevance of papal authority, despite hundreds of years of the bishops of rome referred as pope! Why so if they thought it heretical view? they are never silent on other views they hold heretical, so why do you find no objections to the premise of papal authority in those writings?! If you want to read an objective treatise, which references both arguments for and against, not, like yours, selectively ignores references that support Peter and papacy, then try Stephen Ray, "upon this rock". I read several of such protestant things, which were clearly so one sided, they failed to offer a balanced argument.

BUT THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED

My question again for the very last time. Matthew 18:18
If you dislike the notion of Peter the rock given powers to bind and loose

Who Do YOU think was given that power by jesus, what was the power they were given, and how and when is it exercised.

KenAllan · Feb 13, 2015

This is what Dr J. Vernon McGee says about the Keys and binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19.

"The keys of Heaven were given to all those who make the same confession that Peter made, that those who confess that Jesus Christ is God receive the keys of Heaven. If you are a child of God you have the Keys also given to you just like Peter. The Keys are the badge of authority to interpret the Scriptures. No man or Church has the keys to the exclusion of all other believers.

The binding and loosing on the Earth is the Word of God which is the Gospel. If we withhold the Word, which is the Bible, we bind it, if we give out the Word, the Bible, we loose it on the Earth."

Dr. J. Vernon McGee was a True Christian that followed God. I trust what he says more than what the Popes and Catholics say in the Catholic Church.

notuptome · Feb 13, 2015

mikeuk said:

Another failure to answer.

You are mixing two scriptures " bind in heaven" and " forgive retain sins" presumably because you have not even done me the courtesy of reading them

I can only assume you have no idea what those scriptures mean, don't worry it is a Protestant blind spot I noticed when asking questions overa decade ago. They are happy to discount RCC view, without noticing they are then cutting loose two important scriptures and giving them no meaning at all.

I had to wade through all this anticatholic nonsense to realise none of the evangelical or Protestant positions make sense in the harsh light of day, like your discounting of real presence on the basis of what is permitted to eat in mosaic law, when Jesus clarifies that in excellent fashion in mark 7:19

Anyway, I came here to learn what others meant by some of these scriptures, to discover they do not know.
Like the evangelicals I knew, they are long on anticatholic rhetoric, will twist any belief to make their weak arguments more robust, and worst of all few like me ever question the nonsense used to defend such hatred - they all assume that someone else knows why RCC position is wrong, because none of them can ever explain it, and the words they put in Luther's mouth for the most part are beliefs he never held. They assume he hated RCC when in practice he had utmost respect for it, and never wanted a schism. Just a new broom to sweep it clean.

RCC belief on salvation is well explained in the catechism, for once you can go and read it to discover that most of the nonsense you attribute to RCC is not what it believes, the rest is justifiable.

But as I showed you in proverbs, your brand of private interpretation is forbidden! It is hard to understand Protestant positions because they are so inconsistent, so varied it needs tens of thousands of denominations to cover them, and even then some find they need to go it alone, because their version is not covered by the rest. What chance one mans belief set, different to almost all other Christians is the true church, all one of him!! Now that is an arrogant position to hold!

I will discuss other things if ever anyone shows me how their version of Christianity puts the two scriptures I point into action, because the only one I am aware of is RCC

The problem here is that you interpret scriptures through RCC tradition. We read out of the scriptures Gods truth. We do not read into the scriptures the errors of men.

You covet the error and deny the truth. There is no nobility and no virtue in that position. You will not speak of how one is saved in the RCC because it is not taught and the catechisms of Rome are no source of truth.

You accuse others of twisting scriptures and of blindness yet you are guilty of the same or worse. I am not anti Catholic I am anti apostate church teaching.

John 3:18-20 is stern warning to those who withdraw from the light of Gods word into the darkness of their own reasoning.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

KenAllan · Feb 13, 2015

The problem with the Catholics is they do not accept the authority the Holy Spirit has in interpreting what the Scriptures say. They want their Church to have the authority to interpret the Scriptures only! They want to turn the clock back to the time before Martin Luther and John Calvin was used by God to bring His children out of the corrupted Catholic Church.

The Holy Spirit teaches everything is by Faith and Grace, while the Catholics teach everything is by Works.

The Catholic Church teaches that God does not have the power to wash us clean of our sins that only by confessing your sins to a Catholic Priest that you can be cleansed of the stain of your sins. Its all about power. The Catholics desperately want back the power they had over the World before Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Like i said before its a waste of time to debate with the Catholics because they do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit to teach them the Truth.

Jeff_56 · Feb 13, 2015

and catholicism, like moronism, and hindism, and budlightism, (i.e. all man's and all demon's religious groups)

have another type spirit instead of holy spirit to help them. as long as they refuse truth, not even yahweh

will help them.

someone deceived by any of those demons, if they seek the truth instead of defending the demons way,
might be helped here on this form (in other threads).

but someone deceived by any of those demons, it they trust the demons and try to defend their own involvement with the demons, then no one can help them, except by prayer that yahweh will eventually free them from the demons.

you're right KenAllan, debate with someone demon controlled is futile. there is no purpose in it, and debate with them cannot help them. -- and their presence (when they are not seeking help from yahshua(yahweh's salvation) may hurt many around them (has destroyed billions of souls already!).

notuptome · Feb 13, 2015

KenAllan said:

It is hard to create a detailed picture when we paint with so broad a brush. Roman Catholics are not unlike any other group of lost people. They need to know Christ as their personal Savior.

Religious people of all kinds have a knowledge of their sinfulness. They have a false hope of atoning for their sin through religious rites. They believe that they can make themselves righteous by doing certain things and not doing certain other things.

Christians today take too much responsibility upon themselves to make others believe. Only God can minister in the heart of another person. Only God can apply His word to their hearts in such a fashion as to make His truth evident to them. As a Christian I am not responsible for another persons belief. I am only responsible to present the word of God and truth that God will do that which pleases Him with and through His word. Isaiah teaches that Gods word never goes forth and returns to Him void.

Some of the posters here are wannabe priests or priest trainees. They cannot afford to believe but there are others who will believe because of their unbelief.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Jeff_56 · Feb 13, 2015

a detailed picture of roman abomination is not needed,
just like
a detailed picture of nazi gestapo in germany is not needed,
and like
a detailed picture of buddhist in china is not needed -

neither is any of their 'rules of life' needed for them to be shown salvation if they are willing.

"if they are willing" applies to all people on earth,

but the difference in the anti-christ religions and the doctrines and rules of the anti-christ religions

is that the group, the nation, the doctrines, the rules, the ways of the anti-christ religions is not to be

studied and never has to be studied. as soon as a child of light, someone who is being protected by

yahweh now on earth, reads even a little of or from those groups (if they even get that far without being stopped
by yahshua as the good shepherd may stop them before they even read a word or listen to anything false)

they recognize that it is not their shepherds voice. this is the shepherds promise, not man's promise.

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

KenAllan said:

At least someone answered the question, so thanks..

Interesting.

But the answer is totally inconsistent with both the scripture- it was a power given to someone specific, and how jewish culture already understood binding and loosing which the meaning you give is not consistent.

How can it be the word? The order is back to front! The word originates with God! If it is the word it would be "what is bound in heaven is bound on earth" not the other way round where it actually says what YOU (not God) bind on earth is bound in heaven - that way round. The only sensible interpretation is someone is given the power to make an edict, which heaven will respect. Otherwise the sentence and the jewish roots of that would simply not make sesne. You cannot make interpretations of words like bind and loose up, they were established in jewish culture

Also the keys cannot be given to all. A simple mind game proves that - the fact if we all had the power to interpret, then why does everyone disagree? Take catholics out of the equation - protestants beat each up every day on here over OSAS (or not) - indeed Proverbs 3 urges you against individual interpretation.

The problems are still there.

What do you make of "those sins you would forgive will be forgiven them" Ken - how does you new church interpret that in practice.

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

notuptome said:

Still no answer to a simple question. Nothing to do with RCC I asked you what you think it means.
So now conclusive you have no idea. You are happy to attack RCC interpretation, but like every other protestant I met, on some of these things like Matthew 18:18 you have no sensible interpretation of you your own.

Iasked you (repeatly) about "those sins you would forgive will be forgiven them" john 20:23 - by the look you have no idea on that either.

Spare me anticatholic rhetoric, all it does is prove you do not know.

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

KenAllan said:

By the way - Ken. Show me where the bible says the words I am to trust "Dr Vernon Mcgee", and I will believe you.

Till then, I notice the keys to bind were given to Peter...and an office only understandable via the old testament Stewardship in a davidic kingdom. That is how judaism would have understood the reference to "keys of the kingdome", because they looked for meanings in the OT , and were OCD when it came to history - even the egyptian kingdom had a similar office (remember Joseph)? So none of this is far fetched.
There are so many references to Davidic Kingdom (take riding a donkey even!) this is no accident.

I have yet to see a workable interpretation of Mat 18:18 other than the one I already have.

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

Scratched the record......<ki>...Scratched the record ...<ki> Scratched the record ..<ki.
Do you ever comment on what is said, rather than going round endlessly in a circle of hate?
I feel sorry for you Jeff.

Here is what we actually believe, and I just copied from a PROTESTANT website, who believes it too.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

catholic (small c) means universal before you argue
Challenge catholics on that - not your ridiculous caricature of it!

fordman · Feb 13, 2015

mikeuk said:

Yes Mike, it is quite ironic isn't it? I have experienced the same from KenAllen. I have answerd many of his questions, but he doesn't seem to have the courtesy to answer any of mine. Now you and I know why that is , don't we. For those of you that may not, the answer is simple. They cannot! I/we have asked on many an occasion for them to back up thier frivolous claims on Catholic Doctrine/beliefs with documents that are imprimatur, and what do we get in responce? Nada...Nihil...Kein ding...Rien...Nothing!!! The only thing we get from them is what their uninformed sunday school teacher taught them, or what their anti-Catholic pastor may have preached on a certain Sunday when he couldn't come up with anything else!

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” ― Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.

Pax tecum

"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

notuptome · Feb 13, 2015

mikeuk said:

If you are going to quote me do so accurately not falsely.

You simply will not receive the answers you have been given. You cannot answer questions directly.

Matthew 18:18 is given in the context of church discipline.

John 20:23 is a different context. Neither of these passages relate to Peter and the keys of Matthew 16 directly.

In Revelation 1:18 we again see Jesus the One having the keys of hell and death.

Which door will you unlock? Life or death? Will you enter by the door who is Jesus or will you go into the other door?

Now man up and address the issues but do cease from your accusations against the Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

mikeuk · Feb 13, 2015

notuptome said:

So explain (for the first time )what they mean to you!
They are both instances of someone delegated authority to have power over something.
Who was given what authority to do what, and when that is exercised in your christian life.

It is a simple bible question I never seen answered in a credible way by protestants, and certainly not by you.
Stop the insults, they do not help.
And this really is the last opportunity. If you do not answer now, it is because you do not have a credible answer - no surprise in that, I never saw a protestant who could answer those questions! They only answer "what it is not" never "what it is"

(Except perhaps some High Church Anglican I am aware of in respect of john 20:23 , who I have heard used confession in a similar way, presumably based on the same scripture, or if not ,it is hard to see where they found the authoirty for it)

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Senior Member

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest