Callers to my door.

Quo Vadis

keano_afc wrote: »

It always pains me to see and hear Catholics trying to defend their man-made doctrine when faced with biblical truth. From reading the OP I didnt find one thing that those callers said that wasnt true, especially in regard to the forgiveness of sin. My own church has a team coming over from North America to do door to door work next month and bring the gospel to lost sinners. Thankfully, the Word is getting true and people are being saved.

Praise the Lord that some of the people we speak to on the doors accept biblical truth and dont hide behind the fallible teaching of men.

What church are you, and where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura ?

Donatello

Jakkass wrote: »

This logic is flawed. Let me bring you on a thought experiment.

1) Is the RCC a Christian church? - Yes.
2) Does the RCC account for all Christians? - No.
3) If the RCC is a Christian church and the RCC doesn't account for all Christians isn't it fair to say that the adherents of the RCC are merely a subset of all Christians? - Yes.
4) The RCC can only account for its own members, and there are other churches which account for other Christians. Therefore the RCC as a church is a subset (denomination) of Christianity.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Denomination, as a term, has no meaning within the Catholic Church. Denomination can be used to describe the various groupings which originated from the Protestant Revolt, and which sprang from that (30,000+).

The 'other Churches' you refer to are all those in communion with Rome - all the Particular Churches that make up the Latin rite, and all the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. The term can also be used to refer to the Orthodox, who are, in the words of the declaration DOMINUS IESUS true Particular Churches.

The groupings that orginated from the Protestant revolt and those that sprung from that, cannot be referred to as Churches, but are properly referred to as ecclesial communities.

Below is the relevant explanatory section from the above declaration, with my explanatory comments in [red]:

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches [i.e. the Orthodox], even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense [e.g. the Anglicans, Baptists, etc...]; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.

It is a beautiful document - I read it once - and it describes how Christian unity is to come about.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

You have misunderstood the meaning and application of terms.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. The Lord gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing.

The scriptural 'case'.

To be in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ, one must be in communion with the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter made his way to Rome, and he was the first Bishop of Rome. All the Particular Churches of the world and their bishops must be united to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise they are not part of the Catholic Church.

I've seen the same argument you are attempting to make, by a man, a member of the CoI, who tried to make out that the Roman Catholic Church was just one among many Churches. The logic is flawed. Yes, the Church at Rome is a Particular Church - the Diocese of Rome, and yes, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the Bishop of that Particular Church. HOWEVER, The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. You can use the title Roman Catholic Church if you like, so long as you understand that this means only the Church at Rome, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), but not in any way so as to understand the Roman Catholic Church as simply a denomination, among the Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans etc... for it is not. The Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome, with the Pope as its Bishop (the Bishop of Rome) is a particular Church. But it is not a denomination. Denomination has no use as a term within the Catholic Church. Denomination is simply a term used to describe those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Revolt, and the offshoots from these (30,000+). The successors of the first Pope, Peter, have resided at Rome, and the Bishop of Rome has a supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

The Catechism also helps to explain this:


Let us summarise:

- The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
- The Church at Rome (the Particular Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome) is overseen by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, just as Dublin Archdiocese (the Particular Church of Dublin) is overseen by Archbishop Martin.
- The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, commonly referred to as the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, although that term is not so much used now. The Catholic Church has the Pope as it's supreme earthly head, as ordained by Christ.
- The Catechism tells us: ''The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Padding.

antiskeptic

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What church are you, and where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura ?

The church of Christ in my case (seeing as it's a spiritual and not physical entity).

It's less that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and more my having no basis for trusting the traditions of men when the Bible teaches men as being able to go abominably astray. Since the Roman (and other) church displays so many of the category errors displayed by biblical church men, my trust in it's (scriptures) wisdom is increased.

Scripture is first up, best dressed.

keano_afc

Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

The church of Christ in my case (seeing as it's a spiritual and not physical entity).

It's less that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and more my having no basis for trusting the traditions of men when the Bible teaches men as being able to go abominably astray. Since the Roman (and other) church displays so many of the category errors displayed by biblical church men, my trust in it's (scriptures) wisdom is increased.

Scripture is first up, best dressed.

If the Church is a spiritual and not a physical entity, what was the point of the Incarnation? Is the physical body of the Christian not a temple of the Holy Spirit? Does our physical body have no part in the Church?

One man with his Bible can go abominably astray. What makes you so sure you have not gone astray, just you and your Bible?

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Denomination, as a term, has no meaning within the Catholic Church. Denomination can be used to describe the various groupings which originated from the Protestant Revolt, and which sprang from that (30,000+).

It is a denomination in so far as it doesn't account for all Christians. If it did it wouldn't be a denomination. If the RCC isn't a denomination it would have to account for all Christians, meaning that those outside of the RCC aren't Christians and aren't saved by Christ's grace.

As for the Reformation, I've asked already, but I'll ask again. Do you not think that the structures of the 15th century corrupt RCC lent itself to the Reformation taking place?

Donatello wrote: »

The 'other Churches' you refer to are all those in communion with Rome - all the Particular Churches that make up the Latin rite, and all the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. The term can also be used to refer to the Orthodox, who are, in the words of the declaration DOMINUS IESUS true Particular Churches.

So are Protestants Christians would be the logical question to ask?

Donatello wrote: »

The groupings that orginated from the Protestant revolt and those that sprung from that, cannot be referred to as Churches, but are properly referred to as ecclesial communities.

I know that the Pope said this, but it still means that the RCC is a denomination unless it can account for all Christians. Logically.

Donatello wrote: »

It is a beautiful document - I read it once - and it describes how Christian unity is to come about.

And we differ on this too I suspect. I would see mutual co-operation between churches as the way forward. The RCC sees an absorption of each church one by one as the way to Christian unity.

keano_afc

Donatello wrote: »

One man with his Bible can go abominably astray. What makes you so sure you have not gone astray, just you and your Bible?

"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Is 53:6.

We all go astray, regardless of whether we go on Bible alone or the teachings of men. Whats your point exactly?

Donatello

keano_afc wrote: »

Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

The warning in Revelation pertains only to that book, not the entire Bible...

If your warning was heeded, would Luther have thrown out from the Bible the books he didn't like? Only his mates persuaded him otherwise, he would have thrown out the Book of James. What authority did Luther act with when he threw the books out?

The Church gave us the Bible. Only the Church had the authority to say which books were or were not part of the Biblical canon.

Slav

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe the RCC is the same thing as the early Christian church, and there is no reason to believe that it was as far as I would see it.

Neither do I believe it but I don't see the 4th century as the changing point or that there was ever one single changing point. Moreover, I think post Vatican II RCC is not the same thing as the 16th century RCC which is in turn not the same thing as the RCC of the Reformation time.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence as being distinct from other Christian churches that existed at that time. Namely the Jewish church, the Mar Thomas Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Not sure what you mean here. If by Jewish Church you mean the Church of Jerusalem then in the 4th century it was in communion with Rome (as well as with Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and all other bishops of undivided and catholic Church) and remain in communion with Rome until 1054. Same story with the Armenian Church which remained in communion with chalcedonean Churches (including the one of Rome) until early 6th century. As far as Indian Churches are concerned, it's not clear whether Indian Christian communities can be traced back to Thomas the Apostle or to Thomas Knai (4th century). In any way, even if there was a Church in India before the fourth century, starting from Thomas Knai, Indian Christians were under the patriarchate of Antinoch and therefore were in communion with Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome at least until the Nestorian controversy.

Before then it was Christianity that united these churches not Roman Catholicism or any other denominational mindset.

Before when? But I agree with the second point, Roman Catholicism (whatever we can mean by that) or any other denominational mindset never united the undivided catholic church. It's exactly at the time when a single "denominational" mindset oppose (maybe for a valid reason or maybe not so valid one) another mindset in the Church then we were starting to have schisms, apostasies and divisions.

Indeed, and we know what happened with that eventually. It is interesting to note that much of Donatello's frustrations lie with Protestants though rather than previous apostates if you will

True!
It's probably because from the most common Roman Catholic point of view we are just a strange sect that for some unknown reason or because of pride rejected Papacy at some point in history. Pretty much everything else (from their perspective) is grand with us. :P

Donatello

My comments in red.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is a denomination in so far as it doesn't account for all Christians. If it did it wouldn't be a denomination. If the RCC isn't a denomination it would have to account for all Christians, meaning that those outside of the RCC aren't Christians and aren't saved by Christ's grace. [Now you're just applying your own meanings to terms, the meanings of which I've already given.]

As for the Reformation, I've asked already, but I'll ask again. Do you not think that the structures of the 15th century corrupt RCC lent itself to the Reformation taking place?[Again, that has already been addressed, in one of the Catechism excerpts I posted a couple posts back on this thread. Did you not read it?]

So are Protestants Christians would be the logical question to ask?[If they are validly baptised, they are Christians. But they have rejected so many of the ordinary means by which Christ intended us to keep our baptismal robes clean.]

I know that the Pope said this, but it still means that the RCC is a denomination unless it can account for all Christians. Logically.[No, not logically. See above!]

And we differ on this too I suspect. I would see mutual co-operation between churches as the way forward. The RCC sees an absorption of each church one by one as the way to Christian unity.

I don't know what more I can do. I honestly don't think you have actually read my posts, or at least you have not internalised the arguments, the material, most of which I have included from official Church documents.

I provided the meaning of terms in my posts above, but you insist on applying your own contrary meanings to terms and pasting them to your own arguments and insisting on what has already been refuted.

Donatello

Slav wrote: »

Moreover, I think post Vatican II RCC is not the same thing as the 16th century RCC which is in turn not the same thing as the RCC of the Reformation time.

Not sure what you mean here.

Nor am I. The same thing... It depends what you mean by 'thing'. This could be straying into dangerous territory.

From Lumen Gentium:

8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

hinault

keano_afc wrote: »

It always pains me to see and hear Catholics trying to defend their man-made doctrine when faced with biblical truth. From reading the OP I didnt find one thing that those callers said that wasnt true, especially in regard to the forgiveness of sin. My own church has a team coming over from North America to do door to door work next month and bring the gospel to lost sinners. Thankfully, the Word is getting true and people are being saved.

Praise the Lord that some of the people we speak to on the doors accept biblical truth and dont hide behind the fallible teaching of men.

If they call to my door, they'll be dispatched pronto.
And that's a promise.

Donatello

hinault wrote: »

If they call to my door, they'll be dispatched pronto.
And that's a promise.

Well I hope you go a bit easier on them than they did with Bin Laden!

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

I don't know what more I can do. I honestly don't think you have actually read my posts, or at least you have not internalised the arguments, the material, most of which I have included from official Church documents.

I provided the meaning of terms in my posts above, but you insist on applying your own contrary meanings to terms and pasting them to your own arguments and insisting on what has already been refuted.

You can deal with the points.

Let's use the dictionary? -

A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church

True. The RCC is a branch of Christianity.

A group or branch of any religion

True. The RCC is a group or branch of Christianity.

A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.

True. The RCC fits this definition.

All of these definitions are in keeping with the RCC. A subset of Christianity at large. You've not explained the logic of how the RCC cannot be regarded as a denomination other than that the Pope doesn't think so.

hinault

keano_afc wrote: »

Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

How many different Protestant/Reformed churches are there anyhow?
They all claim that the Bible is their only source :D:D

hinault

Jakkass : The reformed/Protestant churches initially separated themselves from the RCC.
Subsequently these denominations in certain case split and devolved in to other
sects.

Here is the definition of a denomination :
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy

Quo Vadis

antiskeptic wrote: »

The church of Christ in my case (seeing as it's a spiritual and not physical entity).

It's less that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and more my having no basis for trusting the traditions of men when the Bible teaches men as being able to go abominably astray. Since the Roman (and other) church displays so many of the category errors displayed by biblical church men, my trust in it's (scriptures) wisdom is increased.

Scripture is first up, best dressed.

By that rational, you could not trust the apostles or early church fathers, as you know, the bible contents were not agreed until 300 AD, and the contents were altered again in the 1500's by Protestants to suit each of their own seperate factions.


Is this your church ? : http://www.churchofchrist.ie/

keano_afc wrote: »

Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

Deut 12:32 - this commandment only refers to the book of Deuteronomy, and why did it not preclude Christians from accepting all the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy, and the New Testament ?

Quo Vadis

hinault wrote: »

How many different Protestant/Reformed churches are there anyhow?

According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations. Although they can't agree, they do have one thing in common : they all think they are right.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

If the Church is a spiritual and not a physical entity,

By physical entity I mean physical instution. The physical church I walk into on a Sunday isn't the church of Christ.

One man with his Bible can go abominably astray. What makes you so sure you have not gone astray, just you and your Bible?

I'm pretty sure I've gone astray. Whether me and my Bible or me and my Bible and the various other sources of insight I consult. How do you know you haven't gone astray .. in plumping for the Roman Church.

hinault

This thread illustrates what I think is an important issue.

The RCC is the only one of the monotheistic beliefs which has a Holy See.
In other words it is the only religion which has a central canonical authority and which provides instruction upon the tenets and beliefs of it's faith to it's adherents.

hinault

Quo Vadis wrote: »

According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations. Although they can't agree, they do have one thing in common : they all think they are right.

Thanks for this.

philologos

hinault wrote: »

Jakkass : The reformed/Protestant churches initially separated themselves from the RCC.
Subsequently these denominations in certain case split and devolved in to other sects.

Of course, but there are also other Christian churches which predate Roman Catholicism which were never a part of it and some with Apostolic origins.

hinault wrote: »

Here is the definition of a denomination :
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy

The RCC fits every definition of denomination (in respect to religion) that is listed, including this one.

hinault

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course, but there are also other Christian churches which predate Roman Catholicism which were never a part of it and some with Apostolic origins.

can you supply me with the identity of these churches? thanks

antiskeptic

Quo Vadis wrote: »

By that rational, you could not trust the apostles or early church fathers, as you know, the bible contents were not agreed until 300 AD, and the contents were altered again in the 1500's by Protestants to suit each of their own seperate factions.

I wasn't around at the time of the apostles (or Christ). If I had been then that'd be a different matter - I'd have the source and could check whether my belief that I am reading them (more or less) unadulterated was the correct position to take.

The Bible warns and gives category errors. I heed those warnings and exercise judgement. It's not that Rome is the only church capable of error - its just that it's most wide of the mark (in terms of most grossly committing the category errors decribed in the Bible).

Is this your church ? : http://www.churchofchrist.ie/

No (they appear to have weird ideas on gambling from a quick glance)

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

The RCC is the only one of the monotheistic beliefs which has a Holy See. In other words it is the only religion which has a central canonical authority and which provides instruction upon the tenets and beliefs of it's faith to it's adherents...

Correct (with respect to the truth) or otherwise.

Quo Vadis

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course, but there are also other Christian churches which predate Roman Catholicism which were never a part of it and some with Apostolic origins.

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200). http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't around at the time of the apostles (or Christ). If I had been then that'd be a different matter - I'd have the source and could check whether my belief that I am reading them (more or less) unadulterated was the correct position to take.

The Bible warns and gives category errors. I heed those warnings and exercise judgement. It's not that Rome is the only church capable of error - its just that it's most wide of the mark (in terms of most grossly committing the category errors decribed in the Bible).




No (they appear to have weird ideas on gambling from a quick glance)

You can't say they haven't got it right, any more than they can say the Salvation Army has got it wrong. This is the trouble with Protestantism - its relativistic. It is no surprise then to find that where Protestantism establishes, moral relativity and then, finally, loss of faith, are just around the corner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

Quo Vadis

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't around at the time of the apostles (or Christ). If I had been then that'd be a different matter - I'd have the source and could check whether my belief that I am reading them (more or less) unadulterated was the correct position to take.

The Bible warns and gives category errors. I heed those warnings and exercise judgement. It's not that Rome is the only church capable of error - its just that it's most wide of the mark (in terms of most grossly committing the category errors decribed in the Bible).

Just a few of many examples :

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

You should study the early Church, it is not a case the Catholic Church added anything on, it's a case Protestants, in error, cut out much that was valid 1500 years later.

All Catholic teachings and traditions can be traced to the earliest Christians, and nothing the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to scripture and bible the Catholic church provided us with.

Who in the end has the authority to provide the single correct holy spirit interpretation of the word of God ?
- Only the legitimate successors of the apostles

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

You can't say they haven't got it right, any more than they can say the Salvation Army has got it wrong. This is the trouble with Protestantism - its relativistic. It is no surprise then to find that where Protestantism establishes, moral relativity and then, finally, loss of faith, are just around the corner.

And your answer to the same category problem addressed to you earlier? You seem to have skipped by it.

antiskeptic wrote:

I'm pretty sure I've gone astray. Whether me and my Bible or me and my Bible and the various other sources of insight I consult. How do you know you haven't gone astray .. in plumping for the Roman Church.