A question from a former non-Catholic, for non-Catholics...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
East_Anglican said:
Cardinals had bastard children all over the place back then.The sons got eccleseastical posts when they were 9 or 10 and there fathers pocketed the money. This is why the reformation had to happen. The Roman Catholic church had become corupt.
Click to expand...
Still, just claims with nothing to back it up. Typical.
 
I can tell that winter is approaching fast… It’s getting kind of frosty in here.
 
Javl said:
Pope Leo XIII nullified and voided all of Anglicanism, for which he had the authority and right to do so. You may call it Catholic, but it is not. The only Catholics are those in Communion with the Catholic Church ( The Roman Church is but one of the 23 Catholic Churches ).
Click to expand...
And what are the 23?
 
Mikeoffaith said:
And what are the 23?
Click to expand...
The Byzantine, Oriental, and Eastern Churches, such as the Greek Catholic Church, Maronite, Ruthenian, etc. I do not remember the names of all the Catholic Churches, but you can find them in any Catholic Encyclopedia. All are in communion with Rome and with each other.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Whoah! I was raised Catholic all the way into adulthood, but you definitely succeeded in surprising me as much as you did baffle me with this list.
I have to admit that I am impressed and I have to confess that I found myself uninformed before this point.
Thank you.
 
East_Anglican said:
Pope Leo XIII was a philanderer. I sugest what he said was null and void too.
Click to expand...
Now there’s a perfect example of anti-Catholic bias, hostility, ignorance, and “charity” by a “Christian”. Thank you for your help and example, East Anglican.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
East_Anglican said:
Pope Leo XIII was a philanderer. I sugest what he said was null and void too.
Click to expand...
Without trying to defend or accuse Leo XIII of anything let me add something that I find to be rather important:
Men have often said things that were good or important. I am convinced that not all that I have ever said was null and void and I am also convinced that I sometimes say something that might be of value. Without trying to elevate myself, I think I can safely assume that not all of my words are of a vile nature.
I am however a sinful person and I could and would never even think about beginning to deny that. My sin is great indeed and without the grace of my Lord I would be eternally lost and condemned. Parts of me are so vile and some of the thoughts that I have had in the past are so filthy, that I would not show them to my best friends. If I did they would not be my best friends any longer.
I am a sinful person and I cannot deny that. Denial would call God a liar.
Does my sin make everything I say null and void? No it doesn’t.
In the same sense I consider it a fallacy to assume that a former pope’s lifestyle, be it fact or fiction, makes his testimony null and void.
Whether or not I agree with what he said is a completely different issue. We cannot however deduct the validity of what he said from what he might have done, be it proven or not.
 
Return to the topic please.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top