"Sola Scriptura"

[Church_Militant]

You must’ve missed this…

So? St. Paul says the same thing in Romans 2.

11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. 13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[I_Believe]

How many churches were around from the beginning which claim to have Peter as their first leader, and then can show an unbroken chain of leaders from Peter?
Jesus didn’t start two churches, he did not start three, three hundred, three thousand, or 33 thousand churches. He started one church.

Can the leader of your particular denomination trace apostolic succession right back to Peter without having broken with the original church somewhere in history?

Thank you for pointing out exactly what I was going to say to mailman’s question…

Where??? Where does it say “Holy Mother Church”? Or better still “Roman Catholic Church”? Or “Catholic Church”? Or “Holy Catholic Church”?

You should say: “We interpret ‘the church’ to mean the Roman Catholic Church.”

At the time of Christ, His followers were called disciples or breathen. Not long after His death, they came to be known Christians, and not too long after that, all Christians were called Catholics. I can give you the dates if you like, but I just got home and it’s late.

No, there is no interpretation needed. What is your affiliation ? Mine is the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we would be glad to count you as one of us

With so much in common as far as morals and Faith in Christ is concerned, why would one choose to affiliate with a church and religion started by a fellow sinner ? And all the while, reject the Church Christ willed, and has been there since 33 AD ?

How about looking at it this way. Earlier in the thread, you agreed that Christ said Church, not churches. Ok, so if you accept this, then what denomination is of the Church Christ willed ? If you say any one, other than the Catholic Church, then isn’t that saying the Apostles got it all wrong, and the Church Christ willed didn’t come to be until the right sinner came along and started it ?

Isn’t it perfectly clear, Christ willed there be a Church whose purpose is to be the Salvation of souls ? And isn’t it clear that by the words **“Do this in memory of me” **, Christ willed something to be done ?

Luke 14:
22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.

23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Just as He didn’t say “churches”, Christ didn’t say “all”. He said “many”.

Would it not be safe to say, that to be counted as one of the many, one must embrace the Will of Christ as revealed in the Upper Room ?

Please take a day or two and think about it. Ask yourself if the church you are a member of, accepts and acts on the explicit instructions given to us by our Saviour. Can they, without benefit of Apostolic Succession ?

 

[foundthelight]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC 846 - Outside the Church there is no salvation. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of **faith **and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the **necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. **Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (LG 14)

CCC 847 - **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. **(LG 16)

Does the above not affirm what I said earlier?

Look at what I bolded in 846. Christ established the Church, the Church is necessary, Salvation is by and through Christ in faith.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Look at what I bolded in 846. Christ established the Church, the Church is necessary, Salvation is by and through Christ in faith.

I don’t think you really read my post, at least not carefully since what you posted above has absolutely zero to do with my earlier post, which you took exception to.

Earlier I posted in response to po18guy:

18guy:

A better question is “Is it possible to be saved while denying the authority of Christ’s church?”

pwrlftr:

Apparently your church seems to think so. Apparently one need not even recognize Christ to be saved.

I then posted the section fromt he catechism:

CCC:

CCC 847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. (LG 16)

Now, please tell me where I went wrong?

Your own catechism says that it is possible for those who do not know Christ to be saved. I said your church teaches one need not recognize Christ to be saved which is exactly what your catechism says. If you don’t know Christ it’s kind of hard to recognize him as the saviour.

How can you take exception to what I posted when it echoes what your own catechism teaches?

 

[Pwrlftr]

You must’ve missed this…

Why do you think I missed this?

I am very curious to know why you posted this. I made a statement about what your church teaches with no further commentary.

How could you possibly conclude anything from my earlier post since it was a statement about what your church teaches?

I guess you could have an opinion as to how close my summary matches your catechism but that’s not what you have done.

 

[MDK]

You’re right. The only problem is, which church is THE Church? There’s where we are in disagreement.

Do you have the successor of Peter in you “church”? Where is the successor of St Peter found today… in other words, in which Church is he the visible head? You said there’s only one, right…

 

[Church_Militant]

Why do you think I missed this?

I am very curious to know why you posted this. I made a statement about what your church teaches with no further commentary.

How could you possibly conclude anything from my earlier post since it was a statement about what your church teaches?

I guess you could have an opinion as to how close my summary matches your catechism but that’s not what you have done.

My point was that you seem to think that that teaching is somehow wrong, and I wanted to see if

1. You were aware of the passage, and
2. If you agree that it certainly seems to support the Catholic catechesis?

No need to get all defensive and stuff, I just wanted to see if it helped your thinking on that aspect of Catholic teaching?

 

[Pwrlftr]

My point was that you seem to think that that teaching is somehow wrong, and I wanted to see if

1. You were aware of the passage, and
2. If you agree that it certainly seems to support the Catholic catechesis?

No need to get all defensive and stuff, I just wanted to see if it helped your thinking on that aspect of Catholic teaching?

I guess I did get my shorts in a knot. Sorry.

I am aware of what your church teaches and the scriptures she uses to demonstrate the belief. I do appreciate your post…at least now that my shorts are unknotted.

Frequently folks here see arguments where there are none and I thought that might be what you were doing.

 

[mattkubes]

Isn’t sola scriptura based on circular reasoning? How did anyone arrive at that conclusion? Can someone summarise Martin Luther’s thinking for me?

Why Scripture alone? Because it’s the written word of God.
How do you know that? Because it says so.
How do you know it’s right? Because it’s the written word of God.
How do you know that? …
Ad nauseum.

From an outside perspective, the notion of sola scriptura without an external authority would look fairly absurd. Yes faith is important, but Jesus left us a reason for our faith - namely His Church. The Church then compiled the Scriptures to bolster this God-given faith.

There have been dozens (hundreds?) of threads on this topic - maybe someone could direct me to some good ones here at CAF?

 

[Mailman]

Acts 9:32 in the Greek.

ai men oun ekklhsiai kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicon eirhnhn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhqunonto

The Greek word for Catholic is “Katholikos.” The RCC says “Catholic” comes from a combination of two Greek words kath holou, “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” I don’t see any of that in the verse above. The words you had in bold is translated “assembly was confused” in both the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the KJV. “Ekklhsiai” or “ekklesia” means an assembly, a calling out, a congregation, a church. In modern English, the phrase could be translated as “the assembly was in an uproar” (GNB). Although the word “ekklesia can be translated also as “church,” the more accurate rendering here is the one use by the Douay-Rheims and the KJV, as the context does not imply a meeting of Christians for religious purposes.

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t sola scriptura based on circular reasoning? How did anyone arrive at that conclusion? Can someone summarise Martin Luther’s thinking for me?

It is, but there is more to it than the circular.

Why Scripture alone? Because it’s the written word of God.

Because the persons representing the authority appointed by Christ were engaged in corrupt practices. The corruption was so serious as to lead sincere people to want to find some other credible source of authority.
mattkubes;4283944:

How do you know that? Because it says so.

The original Reformers all respected that the Scriptures came from the Catholic Church, and that the Church was authoritative and correct in that decision. Most Protestants will also concede this today, except American fundamentalists who sometimes seem to think they fell out of the sky.

How do you know it’s right? Because it’s the written word of God.
How do you know that? …
Ad nauseum.

The best one I saw on this board was that all doctrine must explicity rooted in scripture, yet this one is derived not from scripture but “the nature of the scriptures themselves”. :hypno:

From an outside perspective, the notion of sola scriptura without an external authority would look fairly absurd. Yes faith is important, but Jesus left us a reason for our faith - namely His Church. The Church then compiled the Scriptures to bolster this God-given faith.

One must keep in mind that the social, economic, and political milieu in which this doctrine developed was not one in which the God-given faith was very evident or pure.

There have been dozens (hundreds?) of threads on this topic - maybe someone could direct me to some good ones here at CAF?

Sorry, I have been on most of them, and there is very little good that I can see.

 

[mattkubes]

Sorry, I have been on most of them, and there is very little good that I can see.

Alright haha - thanks for the summary though!

 

[Mailman]

The mother Church understands the scriptures perfectly, it created the NT.

The RCC did not create the NT. The writers of the NT were mainly Jesus’ disciples.

6-day creation is a clear contradiction of observable scientific nature. Genesis 1 can be interperted as figurative.

“… CAN BE interpreted as figurative,” or SHOULD BE? Is the RCC 100% sure the interpretation is figurative, or is it still waiting for the final word from science before committing itself? If God tells me in His Word that He created the earth in 6 days, I would have to believe His story if I truly believe in Him. If He says He created Adam and Eve the way He did in Genesis, I would have take His Word for it because He is God and could not lie.

The Church does not deny any biblical patriarchs or prophets. You’ll have to prove me wrong with Church documents…

It does not deny, yes. But it does not confirm either. My opinion is the RCC is waiting for any bones to be dug up of these patriarchs then it will confirm their real existence.

In “What Is Catholicism?” copyright 1999 (Nihil Obstat: Rev. Anton Cowan, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur: Rev. David Norris, Vicar General Westminster, June 20, 1996), the Catholic priest John Redford writes: “The Catechism never teaches: “Noah and Abraham actually existed” (cf. CCC 56-59). It simply tells their story, relating it to the history of salvation before Christ.” But, he clarifies, the Catechism is “clear when it wishes to assert UNAMBIGUOUSLY the historicity of certain events, for example the virginal conception of Jesus…”

It is sure about these things and all the things in the Bible, such as Christ dying for our sins, the Eucharist (somehing most protestants do not understand from Scripture) and the ressurection etc.

No, I don’t think it is sure about all the things in the Bible. In fact, it is not sure on most of the things written in the Bible, especially things that can later be discovered by science. The only things that it can say it can be sure of, are things that cannot be proven by science later to be false.

Perhaps it’s just you who doesn’t understand it, or you’d be a Catholic. The Church’s teachings are clear, she understands the Sciptures better than anyone else as I said before.

I really don’t believe it does, that’s why it resorts to ambiguousness.

The only thing Catholics might disagree on is creation because it contradicts clear science and can be understood figuratively. No catholics dispute that God created life or the existence of Hell.

Some of my Catholic friends think hell is just a state of mind, others believe it is real, literal hell fire.

“The Roman Catholic Church has defined that many saints have gone to heaven [clear, no ambiguity]. But it has never defined [unclear, ambiguous. why not define it categorically?] that anyone, even Adolf Hitler, has gone to hell” (John Redford, “What Is Catholicism?” p. 73). How can we trust the RCC to interpret the Scriptures for us when it doesn’t even have the answers to the most basic questions of faith?

Limbo is not an official doctrine taught by the Church; it is merely a hypothetical place suggested by some theologians.

“In recent centuries, the Church [note, not “some theologians”], in wrestling with the problem of the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism, proposed the possibility of “limbo”…” (John Redford, “What Is Catholicism?” p. 75).

To be quite honest I find this post to be a rather uninteligent and hateful post simply attacking the Christ’s Church with unfounded accusations.

I’m not being hateful and I’m not attacking anyone. If giving a contrary opinion is attacking someone, then I would have to accuse all these guys of attacking me [they’re many and I’m only one]. If you look at my other posts, I always talk civilly. Have you noticed who always make insulting remarks on this forum? They’re your Catholic brethren. My post is in response to another guy’s gibe. I’m just trying to talk his language and see how he feels.

 

[redrosetea]

The Old Testament Before Christ
In popular history the earliest known canon of old testament books is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by seventy (hence Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX) scholars for Alexander’s great library in Egypt around the year 300 BC. Supposedly, the scholars were commissioned by Alexander the Great to collect the writings of all the major religions of the time. The Septuagint contains the Old Testament books shared by all Christians along with the Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics, traditional Protestants , and many Orthodox Churches.

In “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary” (NJBC) the authors suggest a more plausible history regarding the Septuagint arguing that the existence of the seventy seems unlikely, and it is more likely that the books were collected and translated over time. Other sources give different dates as well, but it is generally agreed the translation was complete by 100 BC.

Scripture During Jesus’ Time
Much of the debate today centers on whether Jesus accepted the Septuagint as scripture. In the Gospels Jesus never quotes the Septuagint directly. This does not condemn the Deuterocanonical books since there are many other Old Testament (OT) books Jesus did not quote either. No Christian Church accepts only those OT books quoted by Jesus. Old Testament books not quoted by Jesus are still considered scripture. So what did Jesus mean when he refers to scriptures? This seems to be the more compelling question because apparently there was no closed canon of scripture in Jesus’ time.

In The NJBC the authors maintain that there was no clear canon of scripture at the time of Christ. After reviewing the data they state “The conclusion that there was no rigidly closed canon in Judaism in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD means that when the church was in its formation period and was using the sacred books of the Jews, there was no closed canon for the church to adopt” [p. 1041] Part of the evidence they present is the existence of Deuterocanonical books in the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea scrolls). In these scrolls were found parts of three Deuterocanonical texts giving the impression that there was very little distinction between a closed canon and all other texts. They note that both “scriptural” texts and secular texts are included together, with no apparent distinction.

They also dispel any notion that Jews in Jerusalem had a different canon than Jews elsewhere. “The thesis that the Jews in Alexandria had a different theory of inspiration from the theory shared by the Jews in Jerusalem is gratuitous” [p 1041]

 

[Mailman]

Look at what I bolded in 846. Christ established the Church, the Church is necessary, Salvation is by and through Christ in faith.

CCC 846 - Outside the Church there is no salvation. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

CCC 847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Like I said, the CCC is verbose but ambiguous, and hard to understand This is a perfect example. It can mean two different things.

1) "it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:"

2) "Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church… those too may achieve eternal salvation."

 

[mattkubes]

“… CAN BE interpreted as figurative,” or SHOULD BE? Is the RCC 100% sure the interpretation is figurative, or is it still waiting for the final word from science before committing itself?

The Church allows us to hold several interpretations, as long as the essence of the passage is not destroyed. Since the Creation accounts may have been written as allegories, it allows us to hold to this belief. We’re also allowed to believe that the author was being literal. Either way, the spiritual truth of the passage is that God created everything, everything was good, and creation was separated from God by original sin. Surely you believe that there are multiple levels of meaning that can be ascribed to scripture?

In “What Is Catholicism?” copyright 1999 (Nihil Obstat: Rev. Anton Cowan, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur: Rev. David Norris, Vicar General Westminster, June 20, 1996), the Catholic priest John Redford writes:

Nihil obstats and imprimaturs are great, but this is not official Church teaching. It is, and always will be, an opinion. I’ve never heard it, but you can’t use this to say what the Church does or does not teach.

Some of my Catholic friends think hell is just a state of mind, others believe it is real, literal hell fire.

You can find “Catholics” who believe just about anything - try to stick to official Church teachings, alright? Neither the Truth nor The Church is a democracy.

How can we trust the RCC to interpret the Scriptures for us when it doesn’t even have the answers to the most basic questions of faith?

Knowing whether or not Adolf Hitler is in Hell is one of the most basic questions of faith? That’s bizzare…we can’t know who has gone to Hell, because anyone that has true repentance before they breathe their last will not be denied mercy. The Church does not claim to be psychic.

“In recent centuries, the Church [note, not “some theologians”], in wrestling with the problem of the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism, proposed the possibility of “limbo”…” (John Redford, “What Is Catholicism?” p. 75).

This quote says the exact opposite of what you’re trying to use it to prove. Limbo has always been a theological speculation. It was widely believed at one point, but it was never taught as dogma. We’re still allowed to believe it, but no Catholic is obliged o believe that unbaptised babies go there.

 

[mattkubes]

1) "it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:"

2) "Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church… those too may achieve eternal salvation."

There’s nothing ambiguous here - all salvation comes through Christ’s Church because of His meritorious death on the Cross. But those who, through no fault of their own (i.e. didn’t reject Christ), didn’t have a chance to know Christ in their lives can still be saved. But they are still saved through His Church. This is trying to point out that there are no alternate routes.

And no, this does not mean that all those who were never exposed to Christ **will **be saved. Only that they can be (which makes complete sense). God can work grace in any soul He chooses.

Ambiguity is clearly in the eyes of the beholder

 

[Church_Militant]

The Greek word for Catholic is “Katholikos.” The RCC says “Catholic” comes from a combination of two Greek words kath holou, “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” I don’t see any of that in the verse above.

I disagree.

The words you had in bold is translated “assembly was confused” in both the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the KJV. “Ekklhsiai” or “ekklesia” means an assembly, a calling out, a congregation, a church.

You’re wrong about the Douay-Rheims, as the following quote shows.

31 Now the church

had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified, walking in the fear of the Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost.The Greek translates as 'The church throughout all" = universal by definition.

In modern English, the phrase could be translated as “the assembly was in an uproar” (GNB). Although the word “ekklesia can be translated also as “church,” the more accurate rendering here is the one use by the Douay-Rheims and the KJV, as the context does not imply a meeting of Christians for religious purposes.

Really? Then why is ekklesia used here in Matthew 16:18 So that when Our Lord speaks of the church He uses that word and not in the meaning of some vague assembly.

In fact, I don’t think you’re even looking at the right passage.

 

[Church_Militant]

The RCC did not create the NT. The writers of the NT were mainly Jesus’ disciples.

Who were Catholic in their doctrine based upon what they wrote and what we verifiably know they passed on to their own disciples. See the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch for example.

“… CAN BE interpreted as figurative,” or SHOULD BE? Is the RCC 100% sure the interpretation is figurative, or is it still waiting for the final word from science before committing itself? If God tells me in His Word that He created the earth in 6 days, I would have to believe His story if I truly believe in Him. If He says He created Adam and Eve the way He did in Genesis, I would have take His Word for it because He is God and could not lie.

No argument from faithful Catholics there…However, creationism has a problem in that it makes religion speak outside the bounds of it’s competence, trying to assert as science something that is set down in the Bible, a religious collection of writings, never intended by it’s author to function as a science text.

It does not deny, yes. But it does not confirm either. My opinion is the RCC is waiting for any bones to be dug up of these patriarchs then it will confirm their real existence.

In “What Is Catholicism?” copyright 1999 (Nihil Obstat: Rev. Anton Cowan, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur: Rev. David Norris, Vicar General Westminster, June 20, 1996), the Catholic priest John Redford writes: “The Catechism never teaches: “Noah and Abraham actually existed” (cf. CCC 56-59). It simply tells their story, relating it to the history of salvation before Christ.” But, he clarifies, the Catechism is “clear when it wishes to assert UNAMBIGUOUSLY the historicity of certain events, for example the virginal conception of Jesus…”

Where scripture is clear, the church speaks accordingly, where it uses midrash and parables we refrain rather than “go beyond what is written”.

No, I don’t think it is sure about all the things in the Bible. In fact, it is not sure on most of the things written in the Bible, especially things that can later be discovered by science. The only things that it can say it can be sure of, are things that cannot be proven by science later to be false.

In your opinion based upon the fundamental doctrinal error of SS, which is nowhere taught in the Bible, was not held by the early church fathers, and is a new wind of doctrines of men less than 500 years old. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png

I really don’t believe it does, that’s why it resorts to ambiguousness.

Oh ye of little faith. So you prefer to force the carnal interpretations of modern men onto the scriptures and then whack us Catholics because we choose not to? http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/giveup.gif

Some of my Catholic friends think hell is just a state of mind, others believe it is real, literal hell fire.

and which of those alleged Catholic friends calls himself Benedict XVI? Or even bishop or cardinal? What?! Not even a single priest? The church has always taught, still teaches, and will always teach that hell is literal. Some of your alleged Catholic friends need to carefully study to present themselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

“The Roman Catholic Church has defined that many saints have gone to heaven [clear, no ambiguity]. But it has never defined [unclear, ambiguous. why not define it categorically?] that anyone, even Adolf Hitler, has gone to hell” (John Redford, “What Is Catholicism?” p. 73). How can we trust the RCC to interpret the Scriptures for us when it doesn’t even have the answers to the most basic questions of faith?

Why don’t you stick to the catechism instead of some guy’s book about it. Moreover, unlike n-C Protestants (et al) the Catholic Church does not sit around trying to define and interpret every single verse of the Bible. In my experience I am happy with that because those I have known who do have generally gone off the rails into all manner of error.

IMO, that is the best reason for St. James’ warning in chapter 3 verse 1 one his epistle. "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. "

“In recent centuries, the Church [note, not “some theologians”], in wrestling with the problem of the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism, proposed the possibility of “limbo”…” (John Redford, “What Is Catholicism?” p. 75).

So? Do you have a better answer?

The fact is plain that the church (in the person of those magisterial theologians) discussed it as a theoretical possibility and nothing more.

It’s a theory. How then is it wrong? nowhere is it stated that it is either dogma, doctrine, or even worthy of belief.

I’m not being hateful and I’m not attacking anyone. If giving a contrary opinion is attacking someone, then I would have to accuse all these guys of attacking me [they’re many and I’m only one].

And I’m simply responding and refuting your arguments. I don’t generally post on n-C/a-C forums any more, so I don’t feel much sympathy for you being “only one” here at CAF since in my experience here at CAF, you and most of the other n-C apologists are treated far better than I ever was on n-C forums.

Opposing our Catholic faith as you have done is all well and good, but you best be sure that wherever you oppose, faithful Catholics will step up to respond. So far I haven’t seen much of substance in this particular post. But then, I’m a hard sell. :irish1:
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

If you look at my other posts, I always talk civilly. **Have you noticed who always make insulting remarks on this forum? **

They’re your Catholic brethren. My post is in response to another guy’s gibe. I’m just trying to talk his language and see how he feels.So you feel that it’s appropriate to stoop to the other guy’s level? I do my best not to because I feel that it distracts from the facts presented that make one’s case.

BTW, your bolded comment is both untrue and unfair. I know because I have been here at CAF almost from it’s beginning and can assure you that compared to what you feel was uncharitable by anyone so far is a warm fuzzy hug :grouphug: compared to the metric boatload of polemic rhetoric and propaganda I have both seen and responded to from n-Cs/a-Cs here in that time.

I won’t even get into my own bad treatment on several n-C/a-C forums that make the worst I’ve seen from Catholics here at CAF seem almost charming by comparison. Of course if you see something that violates the rules here there is always the Mod alert button system. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/report.gif They are pretty even handed in my experience.

Try to rise above…