Even if I went to the trouble of drawing up a full scale deposition worthy of a court of law using proper reference material instead of mere of the cuff questions in a chat forum I doubt that you Teflon would pay any heed whatsover to it.
You seem to be evasively pedantic and incapable of objective thought.
I have never even broached the topic of Transubstantiation.
If you knew the OBJECTIVE (as opposed to the automatic answers of the brainwashed) history of Wyclif and Lollardy you would be more hesitant to make such sweeping conclusions yourself. Wyclif was a priest and raised objections before he was excommunicated.
Ever heard of conscience?
Goodbye.
My congratulations on your discovery of Roget’s Thesaurus—next you’ll be telling us you have a “valid hermeneutic”, all the while inveighing against pedantry.
I haven’t seen one bit of evidence you have the skill to construct an argument, much less one worthy of a court of law.
I do see that your knowledge of history is weak, as your paraphrase of Wycliffe and Lollardy demonstrates.
Do feel free to open a separate thread on those topics, and prepare to be educated.
You seem to have the misapprehension many anti-Catholics have, which is that an open discussion thread means that everyone need to respond to you in the way you wish to be responded to.
Given that you and your fellow Protestants have not yet been able to articulate a single, unified body of theological doctrine and written it down, you can hardly expect us to keep a running list of the beliefs of the individual heresiarchs which comprise the Atomic Church of Me. If you can’t sort it out yourselves, how do you expect us to?
The Eucharist is on point because some of you claim that Catholics are going to hell because we don’t follow Scripture, nor obey Christ. John 6 shows Christ commanding the disciples to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, which is the basis of the Catholic Mass. It is devastating to “Bible-believing church” arguments that you reject the Eucharist. It is of a piece with the rejection of apostolic succession. It is theology by subtraction.
You do not raise the question because you cannot answer it in any satisfactory manner.
Similarly, you cannot follow the logical conclusion of OSAS and the “fruits” the faithful must demonstrate—namely, that you’ve done nothing more than rename “works” without admitting as such.
With a twist, however—fundamentalists lack the sacrament of penance, and have a marked tendency to drive out of the flock those who have. After all, they can’t “really” have been saved, right?
This lack of charity toward your own—this cruel mistreatment of people at the very nadir of their spiritual lives—has driven many into the arms of the true Church. I have two dear friends from my RCIA class who are now devoted Catholics as a result, with a beautiful baby girl who had the blessing of being a cradle Catholic as a result.
This is what happens when you mess around with the sacraments—nothing good comes of it. They were instituted by Christ, are well-attested in Scripture, and the Church exists to adminster them to the faithful.
The Church continues Christ’s ministry, as St Paul did. For what was lacking in Christ’s sacrifice? What he told Peter: “Feed my sheep.” The Bride of Christ faithfully tends to Christ’s flock.
All of which may be lost on you at the moment, but keep reading Scripture and it will come.
