A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics

[guanophore]

**Where did I say I evangelize catholics because they are catholics? **

You are on a thread asking the question why some Protestants feel it is necesary to evangelize Catholics. Your posts have been pointing to the sins of Catholics. My question was, do you think that Catholics need to be evangelized because they sin.

** Where did I say my sins are different (by your implication, less) than catholics? You continue to misinterpret what I say and add to what I say meanings that are WRONG. How can we have a good discussion with you continually doing so?**

We agreed that everyone sins (at least, I think we did). So my next question was, what is different between your sins, and the sins of Catholics so that you don’t need to be evangelized if you sin, but Catholics do.

What was I wrong about? Perhaps you are saying that your sins and those of Catholics are the same? I am not so sure that comes across in your posts. In fact, none of us have ever been in the position that the Pope is in, or was in when he was a bishop. Neither of us has probably been in a position of authority over someone who was committing the sins that are now in the news. He is in a somewhat unique position, don’t you think? There have been other bishops over priests who were commmitting sins who did not intervene the way we would have preferred.

You will just have to correct me when I miss the mark.

** NO. Because he, according to accounts, ‘covered it up’ in some way, knowingly.**

So if someone unjustly accuses the Pope of knowingly commiting a sin, he should resign?

Do you think he needs to be evangelized if he did this?
Dokimas;6719473:

** **I have addressed the issue; you must have missed it. ****

No, I read the posts. We are in agreement that there are unbeleivers occupying the pews who call themselves Catholic, but don’t know the Lord.

** I’m not here to proselytize. I’ve made that clear over and over and over again in many, many ways.**

No, I did not think that you were. At least, I have never gotten that impression from your posts. In this thread, you seem determined to apply calumnious and spurious negative press about the Pope to your assessment of how he ought to conduct himself.

So the pope has admitted to covering up the sexual abuse by at least one person in his charge?

No, but I know he has confession once a week,a nd I am sure that he repents of any and all sins of which he is aware. I am also certain that he believes knowingly covering up a sin would also be a sin. This is a teaching of the Church.

** STOP wrongly reading into what I’ve said. Don’t you dislike being so often wrong?**

No, not a bit! I would much prefer to be wrong on this point. You have called for the Pope to step down, because you believe he is guilty of willfully covering up sin. You noted that Peter abandoned Christ “before Pentecost”, as if, after Pentecost, this would not have happened. I asked if you thought the Pope should step down because he has not expereinced a personal Pentecost, and is not filled with the HS.

If you believe this, it would also explain why you would think he needs to be evangelized.

** I have made NO comment about the pope and the Holy Spirit.**

No. I was comparing him to his predecessor, Peter. You noted that Peter denied Christ “before Pentecost”. Perhaps you believe that the Pope is in a “before Pentecost” condition?

** If he is ‘born again’ he has the Holy Spirit.**

PERIOD!!! ** I’m NOT the judge who is or who is not ‘born again’.** HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR???

Do you believe that people who are born again can later turn, and reject Christ? If they do that, do they still have the HS?

In Friday’s Mass reading we had the passage “if we deny Him, He will deny us”. What does that mean?

** I**SS teaches that the Bible interprets itself through the Holy Spirit.****

PLAIN and SIMPLE!!!

Yes. This doctrine represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

WRONG reading

!!!

Ok, I sit corrected. You think he should step down because you believe the news reports that he willingly covered up sins of his flock?

And maybe because he is “before Pentecost”, and perhaps is not really a Christian, in which case, he needs to be evangelized.

WRONG

understanding - I have no clue **ABSOLUTELY WRONG **once again. Don’t you get tired of being wrong about someone else???

No, I would very much like to be wrong about all these things. I am not happy at all that you may think these things about the Pope.

** I didn’t make the statement first about Christians**

!!! ** I just made the observation that it seems to be common to both sides**.

Yes, I agree.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore in black.

Actually, he is inaccurate. My statement that SS is heresy is not my “opinion” but a Teaching of the Church. ** If you are emty minded, then you blindly believe what the CC teaches. **

I undersatnd your point, and to an extent I can agree, but I also don’t think that faithful following means a person is empty minded. Remember Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is full of those with the hearts of children. There is a place for simple trust, that does not question or argue, but just goes along. This is how children are, which is one of the things that makes them vulnerable.

The reason it is safe to follow with childlike (unreasoning) faith is because Jesus is entirely trustworthy,and will not lead us astray.

** If you are a thinker and believe what you have said, then you own your opinion (right or wrong). So which is it?**

I do consider myself a thinker, but it s not my opinion. It is a doctrine of the faith. I have studied it, prayed about it, and chosen to receive it.

** SS did not cause division **- wrong understanding did!!!

SS is what foments wrong understandings. I agree with you on the source of the division, but the wrong understanding is initiated and perpetuated by SS. When the reader of Scripture does so in separation from what the Apostles believed and taught, one begins to wander into error.

** WHAT**? Are you judging now?

Yes. I have seen you use that response with a variety of people in different threads. It is my judgment that it reflects that you don’t like or agree with what has been said, but have decided not to argue.
Dokimas;6719473:

** I don’t like OR dislike your statements**

; **I DO disagree **(so we’re even; you OFTEN disagree with me. Do you ever dislike what I say?).

Absolutely!

I even dislike your assumptions, when you don’t even say them! Like the implication that the Pope has willfully covered up sins.

Need I say, if I hold a different OPINION, I think the oposite opinion in wrong.

No, that comes across quite clearly. I would add that when you say “thank you for your opinion” it also communicates that you have agreed to disagree, and are not going to argue.

Don’t you think that when someone’s opinion on issues of the Bible that are different than yours, they are wrong?

No. Only when they contradict what the Apostles believed and taught do I think that.

Jesus did not leave us orphans. He left a teacihng authority in charge, so that we could have confidence in a correct understanding of what He revealed.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Here goes… I’ve been waiting to see one of these types of threads and it happened in less than a week.

I am not a Catholic, nor will I ever be. I’m one of those people who both sides dislike because I believe that the true church resides in the hearts and minds of true believers in the saving blood of Christ I only use the word Protestant because it helps people to have some understanding of me, but I don’t hold to many of the Protestant Doctrines. When I was young and for most of my teenage years, I was a conservative Baptist. They were lovely people, but my goodness those folks could find a sin under every rock and leaf in all of God’s creation. It was all I could do to manage the sin I already had in my life without finding another hundred or so every month! LOL.

The OP uses words that imply that protestants would take advantage of a vulnerable Catholic and lead then into apostasy!. While I know that wasn’t meant to be offensive, it is. If I changed the scenario to a Catholic taking advantage of a vulnerable protestant and leading them into apostasy, Catholics would surely be just as offended. So, for me personally, I don’t think it’s helpful to use inflammatory language. It won’t smooth the rift and will likely make things even worse.

It is not my intention to proselytize to anyone here. I don’t necessarily think anyone needs to be proselytized to (except for complete unbelievers)I have asked some questions and some Catholics have graciously replied and another was completely insulted that I asked a question. I can’t control the actions of others, I can only control my own actions.

If you really pull out all of the non-essentials, there is little left to really get anyone’s boxers in a bunch about. We aren’t going to agree on Sola Scriptura, purgatory, the infallibility of the Pope. But we do agree on the fact that Jesus came to die for our sins and showed us mercy that we did not deserve then and still don’t now.

I moderate two other Christian sites and 1 commercial site. Bottom line is that people are going to disagree. I believe the best way to handle this kind of problem would be to try to take care of it via pm, and then the mods as a last resort.

I’d bet the Mods here have seen this type of problem countless times and deal with it in a completely fair way,

I CHOOSE to have many Catholic frineds. I love them and deeply respect them even if I think they have lost a few dendrites in the conflicr. I’m also very sure they think the same about me. But here’s the Good News, Jesus knows those within his own family who truly love Him and try to live Godly lives. I don’t see any reason for it to be any more complicated than that, The way is narrow, but Jesus said "My Yoke is Eaay: There are all kinds of Catholics and all kinds of Protestants, I’m going to let God sort out dividing line.

Prayerss, blessings and grace to all.

 

[PRmerger]

If you really pull out all of the non-essentials, there is little left to really get anyone’s boxers in a bunch about. We aren’t going to agree on Sola Scriptura, purgatory, the infallibility of the Pope. But we do agree on the fact that Jesus came to die for our sins and showed us mercy that we did not deserve then and still don’t now.

So here’s the thing, ForeverGrace: what are the “essentials” and what are the “non-essentials”, and how do you know?

It sounds like you’re saying there’s at least one essential: what’s been bolded above.
How do you know that’s essential but that Sola Scriptura, purgatory and infallibility are not?

Heck, let’s just take a copy/paste of some of the threads that are on the CAFs–how do you know that any of these topics are essential/non-essential?

                 [**Why do rights exist?**](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=463702)

Who created God?

My proof for God. Critiques please.

The epistomological weakness of the logical problem of evil.

Appeal to Emotion and Rhetoric
What do Religious people say to this?
Things that go bump in the night … for atheists
For every effect their must be a cuase. Everbody debate this classical arguement please. Athiests: What do you do when…

[**A theological argument FOR abortion**](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=464267)

state of grace and timing of death

But here’s the Good News, Jesus knows those within his own family who truly love Him and try to live Godly lives.

Aren’t we called to love God with our entire heart, soul, strength and MIND? If we can’t really know what God has revealed about all those issues cited above, then how can we really love him with our mind?

And, doesn’t knowing the truth about SS, purgatory, infalliblity, etc etc etc help us live Godly lives?

EDIT: I don’t intend for you to address the “essential” nature of each of the examples I provided, FG. It’s just an arbitrary list of topics I’ve listed in order to make my point: *how do we know what’s an essential belief? *

NB: I also don’t want a list of what you consider to be essential. I’d like to know how a non-Catholic *determines *what’s essential, 'kay?

 

[ForeverGrace]

Good Morning PRMerger, It’s nice to meet you.

I must not have been very clear with my short post. I have no intention of ever becoming a Catholic, but I also don’t have any intention to lead anyone away from Catholocism. I thought I was clear why, but sometimes when I think I’ve said something clearly I haven’t so my apologies for that. Let me try again. I don’t think it’s necessary to proselytize a Catholic as I believe that the great majority of them are saved. That is much more charitable than most Protestants. Also, honestly, I don’t mean that as a way to condescend to anyone or to slight Protestants. It’s simply what I sincerely believe.

You are correct, we could cut n’ paste what some might think are competing verses to back up our claims, but that’s all we would accomplish?

Just for an illustration let’s use purgatory. I know that you are surely aware that there is no such word in Bible, I’m not convinced it’s even taught anywhere in the Bible. For the sake of the argument, let’s say there is a purgatory. Will not the person who spends time there ultimately be with the Father in Heaven? Isn’t the entire purpose of it… to further ‘purify’ a soul so it is in a better condition to be in the presence of God? Since on both sides of the argument we’ll both get to heaven in the end, why do I need to believe in it? The point is, we can both make an articulate argument either for or against it.

Every argument becomes about Sola scriptura and the traditions of the Catholic Church. You believe in Grace plus works, I believe in Grace plus grace. At least that’s the way people usually frame their arguments. But seriously, a sincerely committed Christian will do good works because it is the goal to become more Christlike. The ONLY difference is that Catholics see good works as a necessity and I see them as a result of my adoration for God. Either way, we’ll both do them. I can’t find anything to argue about even if I wanted to, which I don’t.

The question from the OP was why some Protestants feel it’s necessary to proselytize Catholics. I answered it. I don’t think it’s necessary.

You clearly feel you have truth on your side, and I feel just as sure that I have truth on mine. What will we accomplish by playing the dueling verses game? Remember when Paul and Silas were jailed and their jailer asked them “What must I do to be saved?” The answer was simple. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”.

That’s where I am. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. You do that and so do I. There is no reason for me to argue with a sister in Christ. Jesus shed His blood for you and for me.

I did come here to partly refine some of my thoughts on what Catholics believe. Isn’t that one of the things we are accused of all the time? We have beliefs about Catholics that aren’t true? And honestly I’d been told that there were Catholics here who were downright hateful towards Protestants. I hadn’t experienced that so I came to see if it was true. I have seen some rancor, but very little. I haven’t seen any really mean-spiritedness either. I think that the people who told me those things were either hypersensitive or prone to serious exaggeration.

Jesus demonstrated over and over and over, that following the Jewish law had corrupted the leadership. He knew we could never conform ourselves to a sinless life. So He offered us a precious gift. All we have to do is to sincerely receive it. We still sin and we still are in a perpetual state of repenting and asking for forgiveness and for help in becoming more Christlike. That’s my definition of a Christian. If yours is different, I won’t be critical of it as some of my brother and sisters in the Lord are. I’ve watched people (not on this forum) on both sides who claim that they love the Lord with all their hearts say the most ugly, wretched and vile things to each other over things as insignificant as eating a Big Mac on Friday. That’s not for me. I prefer graciousness over smugness. I love Jesus, You love Jesus. That’s all the matters in my humble opinion.

Because He Lives…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t want to go off topic, but may I respectfully ask why so many people state, “Believe ON the Lord Jesus?” I always picture poor Jesus lying on the ground with a bunch of people standing on Him when I see that phrase.

Why isn’t it “believe IN the Lord Jesus?” Maybe I’m just an old fogey at 53, but that is the phrasing that I was taught, and I don’t know why or when it changed to this ‘on’ jazz.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t want to go off topic, but may I respectfully ask why so many people state, “Believe ON the Lord Jesus?” I always picture poor Jesus lying on the ground with a bunch of people standing on Him when I see that phrase.

Why isn’t it “believe IN the Lord Jesus?” Maybe I’m just an old fogey at 53, but that is the phrasing that I was taught, and I don’t know why or when it changed to this ‘on’ jazz.

The question if one believes in Jesus Christ centers on this questions:

1. You say you believe in Jesus Christ, and you say yes. Do you believe everything that he said to his Apostles.

• Do you believe Jesus Christ when:

A. he said that we must eat flesh and drink his blood?

B. he build his Church upon Simon Peter?

C. he said that he is God.

Any so called believer who claims that he believes in Jesus Christ and reject some of these core essential belief is not really a believer. A Christian have to believe everything that Jesus taught to his Apostles, and what the Apostles have handed down to their successors, which is founded in the One Church Jesus founded. For us Catholics, it is the Catholic Church, and even in the Eastern Orthodox Church because they have a valid Apostolic Succession. The state of both the CC and EOC might be in Schism but the leaders of both Church are working on their way towards Christian unity.

They want to bring the Christian Church the way it was prior to the 1054 AD Schism. Sadly, some Evangelical / Fundamentalist Christians have some foolish idea that united Christian Church under the Pope is so-called World Wide Church that is the against Jesus. You can read the Rapture books and the way they depict the Pope. In the Rapture series, the Pope is seen as the ally of the Anti-Christ…

 

[KathleenGee]

Our works as Catholics in our parishes is no different than ‘works’ in a Protestant congregation.

If you say you love Jesus and hate your enemy, you are a liar.

“Works” is a red herring that has been going around for a long time …‘if you sin, sin lustily!’

What a joke! Jesus told the woman at the well to sin no more…Jesus came to break the power of sin…not tell us to go ahead, do it again…

There is alot of marlarkey with a little demon attached that penetrates peoples’ souls and they believe whatever…my daughter’s seventh grade class had a clock with the numbers that said ‘Whatever…’

 

[StevieD]

If I believed that the Catholic faith was the fulness of truth I would be a Catholic. I believe the Catholic faith has mixed the profane with the holy the pagan with what is true. **
.**

The answer to the question is indicated in the above response. Many (Calvinists and most ‘born again’) of Reformed/Prostestants believe that Catholics are not Christians and are therefore damned or at least in great spiritual danger because of our religion. They therefore see it as an urgent act of charity to seek to convert us or, at least, sow seeds of doubt in our minds about some aspect of Catholic belief. We, on the other hand, do not regard them as lost or at great risk merely because of the religion that they were born into or adopted in good faith, (though obviously we regard other Christians as spiritually impoverished to some extent). So the outlook is totally different.
Reformed/Protestants often misunderstand Catholic belief (not sure why when the Catechism is online) and so their presence here might assist some to discover the difference between what Catholics are sometimes claimed as believing and what we actually believe.

 

[Dokimas]

And what is the Truth? You’ve been saying, over and over, that the Catholic faith is not a unity of faith, in which at any given point some of its members may not actually ‘practice’ some parts of it; you’re saying that by some of its members not practicing some parts, they are actually making lots of different ‘individual’ (i.e., not a unity) faiths just like Protestant denominations.

**And we keep saying that is not so./**B]

Objective observation tells me it is so. ** But put that aside — If you stop bringing up the irrelevant 40,000 denominations, I’ll stop making this valid point. This type of conversation is going NO WHERE!!!**
**

Furthermore, I have yet to see other Protestants coming on to say, oh yes that’s right Doki, there are at least 40,000 different Methodist ‘faiths’ and the Methodist faith is not a unity of faith. There are at least 40,000 different Baptist faiths and the Baptist faith is not a unity of faith. . .etc. etc.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, would you please use the function correctly? You obviously know how to change colors, bold, etc. When you don’t use the function other have to pick apart your post in order to respond. It’s difficult to do.

Thank you.

I think I figured it out today. Look above.

 

[Dokimas]

Doki, please provide the Scripture verses which say that the “Bible interprets itself through the Holy Spirit.”

Note my quote. I didn’t say the Bible necessarily says that, but sure very much implied. For example…

2 Peter 1:
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which** the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual**.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Lu 12:12 “For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t want to go off topic, but may I respectfully ask why so many people state, “Believe ON the Lord Jesus?” I always picture poor Jesus lying on the ground with a bunch of people standing on Him when I see that phrase.

Why isn’t it “believe IN the Lord Jesus?” Maybe I’m just an old fogey at 53, but that is the phrasing that I was taught, and I don’t know why or when it changed to this ‘on’ jazz.

Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone UPON which we are to build our lives. Maybe that’s why?

 

[Dokimas]

guanophore:
You are on a thread asking the question why some Protestants feel it is necesary to evangelize Catholics. Your posts have been pointing to the sins of Catholics. My question was, do you think that Catholics need to be evangelized because they sin.

I hope this is cleared up and you don’t mis think any more.

We agreed that everyone sins (at least, I think we did). So my next question was, what is different between your sins, and the sins of Catholics so that you don’t need to be evangelized if you sin, but Catholics do.

I can only speak specifically for myself – To my shame, I sin. **The difference is that my sins are mine and I can’t blame anyone else for them. **

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think I figured it out today. Look above.

I saw it. Thank you. I know a lot of people appreciate it. I do!

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore said: What was I wrong about? Perhaps you are saying that your sins and those of Catholics are the same?

Maybe mine are worse.

I am not so sure that comes across in your posts. In fact, none of us have ever been in the position that the Pope is in, or was in when he was a bishop. Neither of us has probably been in a position of authority over someone who was committing the sins that are now in the news. He is in a somewhat unique position, don’t you think?

What I think is that to know of the types of sexual sins we are speaking of and to do NOTHING about it except maybe move people around, is hard to defend.

There have been other bishops over priests who were commmitting sins who did not intervene the way we would have preferred.

Are they worthy of their position if they don’t protect the innocent young boys and girls?
You will just have to correct me when I miss the mark.

So if someone unjustly accuses the Pope of knowingly commiting a sin, he should resign?

He should resign if he let those in his charge go unpunished. He SHOULD NOT resign if the alligaitions are untrue.

Do you think he needs to be evangelized if he did this?

**No. **Richard Wurmbrand said their are two kinds of believers: those who truly believe in Jesus (their works usually give evidence) and those who believe the believe. The second type need to be evangelized.

No, I read the posts. We are in agreement that there are unbeleivers occupying the pews who call themselves Catholic, but don’t know the Lord.

No, I did not think that you were. At least, I have never gotten that impression from your posts. In this thread, you seem determined to apply calumnious and spurious negative press about the Pope to your assessment of how he ought to conduct himself.

I hope I’ve clearly stated my position. Actually, I don’t care what the pope does. It matter NOT to me, not being a catholic. I forget what we all were discussing the lead me to bring up the subject.

No, not a bit! I would much prefer to be wrong on this point. You have called for the Pope to step down

(actually I don’t care if he does; that wasn’t my point.),

because you believe he is guilty of willfully covering up sin.

If it is true, should he step down? Remember the degree of the alligation!!!

You noted that Peter abandoned Christ “before Pentecost”

remember you brought up Peter,

as if, after Pentecost, this would not have happened. I asked if you thought the Pope should step down because he has not expereinced a personal Pentecost

two totally different sujects,

and is not filled with the HS.

Not my place to judge or know.
If you believe this, it would also explain why you would think he needs to be evangelized.

No. I was comparing him to his predecessor, Peter. You noted that Peter denied Christ “before Pentecost”. Perhaps you believe that the Pope is in a “before Pentecost” condition?

I’ve already answered this above.

Do you believe that people who are born again can later turn, and reject Christ?

My guess is yes. My heart hopes not.

If they do that, do they still have the HS?

** Of course not, IMO. Can’t have one without the other.**

In Friday’s Mass reading we had the passage “if we deny Him, He will deny us”. What does that mean?

Just what it says.

Yes. This doctrine represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Ok, I sit corrected. You think he should step down because you believe the news reports that he willingly covered up sins of his flock?

Silly question. It matters NOT what I believe, only what is correct for him to do is he’s covered up that wicked sin.

And maybe because he is “before Pentecost”, and perhaps is not really a Christian, in which case, he needs to be evangelized.

Are you being silly again? If not, then teach him how to experience Pentecost.

No, I would very much like to be wrong about all these things. I am not happy at all that you may think these things about the Pope.

If I were you I’d be unhappy if the reports are true.

Yes, I agree.

Finally.

 

[PRmerger]

Note my quote. I didn’t say the Bible necessarily says that, but sure very much** implied.** For example…

EXCELLENT!! Then you are not a SS Christian! :extrahappy::dancing::clapping:

I hope, then, that you will accept that some of the Catholic doctrines, while not explicitly stated in the Scriptures, can be construed from them. Like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Like purgatory. Like the Trinity…

 

[PRmerger]

I think I figured it out today. Look above.

LOVE it! Yay!!

Just remember that all functions have to have both parentheses ] enclosing it at the beginning, and backslash parentheses / ] to close it!

So to bold you need “B” inside the parentheses.
To quote you need “quote” inside the parentheses.
To insert a photo or image you need “IMG” inside the parentheses.

 

[PRmerger]

Good Morning PRMerger, It’s nice to meet you.

Right back at cha, FG!

I must not have been very clear with my short post. I have no intention of ever becoming a Catholic, but I also don’t have any intention to lead anyone away from Catholocism. I thought I was clear why, but sometimes when I think I’ve said something clearly I haven’t so my apologies for that. Let me try again**. I don’t think it’s necessary to proselytize a Catholic as I believe that the great majority of them are saved. **

That is much more charitable than most Protestants. Also, honestly, I don’t mean that as a way to condescend to anyone or to slight Protestants. It’s simply what I sincerely believe. I’m not sure why you think I disagree with you. I never even talked about proselytizing.

I’m addressing your point regarding “essentials”.

Since on both sides of the argument we’ll both get to heaven in the end, why do I need to believe in it?

Because it is a truth revealed by God.

I can imagine some of Jesus’ disciples asking him questions such as yours. And I can imagine his answer: because I have spoken it.

You clearly feel you have truth on your side, and I feel just as sure that I have truth on mine. What will we accomplish by playing the dueling verses game?

Clearly, then, you are free not to post but just lurk. Of course, your comments are always welcome, but I find it peculiar that you would come to a forum–which exists in order to provide a means for dialogue/discourse/discussion–and then say it’s pointless to dialogue.

 

[PRmerger]

I did come here to partly refine some of my thoughts on what Catholics believe.

And we’re glad to have you! The CC needs people like you who can call out the average Clueless Catholic in the pew and say, “No, sir, your church does NOT teach that. You ought to be ashamed that I know your faith better than you.”