Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[fordman]

According to what the Holy Spirit teaches in the Bible we are not to associate or have anything to do with the Catholics.

Is that right? If you truley believe this, then you are contradicting yourself, for it was the Catholic Church that compiled the very bible you quote from. This she did by collecting the Jewish and Christian writings extant, and selecting from them the books and letters that form the canon of Scripture, declaring them to be writings that were inspired by God. The Canon recognized by the Catholic Church for the past fifteen centuries (73 books) was specified in the Council of Laodicea in 367 A.D., and was definitely adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after being sent to the Pope for confirmation. Even Martin Luther knew this.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther, commentary on St. John

So you see KenAllen, just you reading, and quoting from the bible is associating yourself with the Catholic Church.

The Holy Spirit teaches us that we are to have nothing to do with Idolaters and Immoral people.1Cor.5:9-13.

Is this your personal interpretation of Scripture? If so, are you absolutely sure it (your interpretation) is without error?
In 1 Cor.5:9-13, Paul here corrects a misunderstanding of his earlier directives against associating with immoral fellow Christians. He concedes the impossibility of avoiding contact with sinners in society at large but urges the Corinthians to maintain the inner purity of their own community.

Catholics are idolaters because they have Mary as another God which is a violation of the first commandment that we are not to have other gods before us.

Please show "any" official Catholic doctrine that can support this claim, something that is imprimatur. Do you understand the meaning of the word "imprimatur"? Good luck! Lol!

[quote[Therefore we are not to associate with any so called brother if they are an immoral person. According to the Holy Spirit we are to remove our self from the Catholics and not have fellowship with them.[/quote]

Again..... you better get rid of your bible then!



Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

 

[notuptome]

Is that right? If you truley believe this, then you are contradicting yourself, for it was the Catholic Church that compiled the very bible you quote from. This she did by collecting the Jewish and Christian writings extant, and selecting from them the books and letters that form the canon of Scripture, declaring them to be writings that were inspired by God. The Canon recognized by the Catholic Church for the past fifteen centuries (73 books) was specified in the Council of Laodicea in 367 A.D., and was definitely adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after being sent to the Pope for confirmation. Even Martin Luther knew this.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther, commentary on St. John

So you see KenAllen, just you reading, and quoting from the bible is associating yourself with the Catholic Church.


Is this your personal interpretation of Scripture? If so, are you absolutely sure it (your interpretation) is without error?
In 1 Cor.5:9-13,[/B] Paul here corrects a misunderstanding of his earlier directives against associating with immoral fellow Christians. He concedes the impossibility of avoiding contact with sinners in society at large but urges the Corinthians to maintain the inner purity of their own community.


Please show "any" official Catholic doctrine that can support this claim, something that is imprimatur. Do you understand the meaning of the word "imprimatur"? Good luck! Lol!

[quote[Therefore we are not to associate with any so called brother if they are an immoral person. According to the Holy Spirit we are to remove our self from the Catholics and not have fellowship with the

Again..... you better get rid of your bible then!



Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

It appears from this perspective that the Catholic church has drifted away from what you suggest it was 1700 years ago.

An argument can be made that God has used infidels to do His will in the past.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mikeuk]

Its a shame the Catholics put more authority in the teachings of the Catholic Church and less authority in the teachings of the Holy Spirit who did write the Bible for us to read and study.

Like i said before its a waste of time to debate or argue with the Catholics because they are walking in darkness and cannot understand what The Holy Spirit is saying in the Scriptures.

We need to bring the Gospel of Salvation to the Catholics.

Romans 1:16-17 (NASB77)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, " BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Galatians 1:6-9 (NASB77)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
[SUP]7 [/SUP] which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

The Catholics need to return to the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and toss away all their teachings from evil men who have deceived them into following Idols like Mary.

So when your argument is proven false, you return to anti catholic soundbites.

I went to the trouble of illustrating some issues to do with mary from scripture, including davidic roots, and you have not challenged on any single one.

You have a blindspot when it comes to history!
It is a shame you have failed even to research where the new testament comes from! evidently! We have the gospel of salvation, indeed as Luther pointed out, Christians everywhere are eternally indebted to the catholic church, because it was what became called the catholic church that gave you your new testament on the basis of what they thought it meant.
If you regard the church as false, or those church fathers not inspired you must bin your new testament same day!.

Mary is not an idol! She really was the mother of christ, and awarded high honour, "full of grace, blessed" and so on.

I could throw both of those scriptures back as applying you with whatever you now believe, but what is the point? You will see on this forum take on OSAS groups arguing passionately for "their version" of what scripture means, all arguing they discerned the holy spirit for its meaning so with several opposed views most of them are wrong. So there is no merit in your argument.

Absence of agreement proves the need for authority.

Unlike the typical evangelical of today, who rarely ventures past the new testament the jewish culture was obsessive about its own history and sense of identity. And they knew all the scriptures.

So when Jesus referred to the "keys of the kingdom" it is inconceivable they would not have associated that with the meaning to davidic kings. If you accept the working language was aramaic , then peter was the rock given the keys, and authoity to bind and loose. Another expression well grounded in judaism. So there is the authority.

It is only later protestants who have tried to sidestep the link of peter and rock. Put together Peter was given an inheritied office as second in command not king. Even Calvin and Luther thought that, although they tried to pretend that unlike the office of steward, clearly referenced in davidic times, they try to pretend it stops with peter!

I have yet to find an evangelical that can give me an alternative but scriptural alternative for the meaning of "keys of the kingdom". It is not the catholic church that has problems with scripture, it is others who will do anything to avoid the obvious.

Take the obvious revelations 12:1 is mary. Why , because all the rest of the gospels tell the same story! But the way protestants strain at gnats to avoid the obvious and say it is something else is amazing!

I am happy for people to disagree with interpretation but to pretend that catholics are not bible christians is convenient but untenable.

The saddest thing of all, you were given a gift of teaching about the catholic faith, and did not even do the research to discover what it meant. No wonder the family won't talk to you, if the above is the level of argument.

 

[mikeuk]

Might have been twelve stars but the woman in Rev 12 is not Mary.

And there of course is the problem. The way protestants strain at gnats to avoid blindingly ovbvious meanings because they dont like the conclusion.

The keys cant really be the keys of a davidic kingdom (when all jews were obsessive of their own history) , and petra and petros cannot be the same (they are spoken in aramaic!) because that would mean giving peter authority we dont like!

The woman of rev12.1 cant be mary because you don't like her, whatever it is.

The blood of christ , can't be real blood, because you do not like the real presence, despite the fact his audience thought so!

Roger - For you the scripture will always mean exactly what you want it to mean. Sad but true.

Would be happy to talk about sacraments. But don't have time at the mo.

 

[notuptome]

And there of course is the problem. The way protestants strain at gnats to avoid blindingly ovbvious meanings because they dont like the conclusion.

The keys cant really be the keys of a davidic kingdom (when all jews were obsessive of their own history) , and petra and petros cannot be the same (they are spoken in aramaic!) because that would mean giving peter authority we dont like!

The woman of rev12.1 cant be mary because you don't like her, whatever it is.

The blood of christ , can't be real blood, because you do not like the real presence, despite the fact his audience thought so!

Roger - For you the scripture will always mean exactly what you want it to mean. Sad but true.

Would be happy to talk about sacraments. But don't have time at the mo.

By the same token you Catholics over spiritualize everything to the point where all you have left is superstition and magic.

The woman in Rev 12 is symbolic of Israel not Mary.

Scripture clearly prohibits the eating of blood because it is a pagan ritual so Christ did not authenticate paganism.

The church is built on Christ not on Peter. One foundation that is secure the other proven unstable.

I await your conclusions on the necessity of the sacraments.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jimbone]

And there of course is the problem. The way protestants strain at gnats to avoid blindingly ovbvious meanings because they dont like the conclusion.

The keys cant really be the keys of a davidic kingdom (when all jews were obsessive of their own history) , and petra and petros cannot be the same (they are spoken in aramaic!) because that would mean giving peter authority we dont like!

The woman of rev12.1 cant be mary because you don't like her, whatever it is.

The blood of christ , can't be real blood, because you do not like the real presence, despite the fact his audience thought so!

Roger - For you the scripture will always mean exactly what you want it to mean. Sad but true.

Would be happy to talk about sacraments. But don't have time at the mo.

Look I am really not trying to join this "conversation" to fight back and forth but wanted to comment on one thig said here.

You said, "Roger - For you the scripture will always mean exactly what you want it to mean. Sad but true."

So you are suggesting that it can only mean what the RCC tells you it means? Does that not seem fishy at all to you? I see alarms going off like crazy when an organization tells you "we are the only way you can understand why these words mean the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the words say. Basically saying you need us to explain why “"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Really means fill every church on earth with these idols and bow down to them, but just say “we are not doing that” if anyone confronts you on it. That doesn’t seem the least bit sketchy to you?

 

[notuptome]

Look I am really not trying to join this "conversation" to fight back and forth but wanted to comment on one thig said here.

You said, "Roger - For you the scripture will always mean exactly what you want it to mean. Sad but true."

So you are suggesting that it can only mean what the RCC tells you it means? Does that not seem fishy at all to you? I see alarms going off like crazy when an organization tells you "we are the only way you can understand why these words mean the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the words say. Basically saying you need us to explain why “"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Really means fill every church on earth with these idols and bow down to them, but just say “we are not doing that” if anyone confronts you on it. That doesn’t seem the least bit sketchy to you?

That's just a tad inconvenient. I'm sure it just another anti-Catholic myth that Protestants spread around with great malice.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mikeuk]

Look I am really not trying to join this "conversation" to fight back and forth but wanted to comment on one thig said here.

You said, "Roger - For you the scripture will always mean exactly what you want it to mean. Sad but true."

So you are suggesting that it can only mean what the RCC tells you it means? Does that not seem fishy at all to you? I see alarms going off like crazy when an organization tells you "we are the only way you can understand why these words mean the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the words say. Basically saying you need us to explain why “"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Really means fill every church on earth with these idols and bow down to them, but just say “we are not doing that” if anyone confronts you on it. That doesn’t seem the least bit sketchy to you?

I see the same alarms in the scriptures I pointed to Roger

But the context is vital as is taking all scriptures not just one, there are two linked scriptures on keys.

I don't have time for fuller explanation but check out 1 kings 6 23 example, and more where that came from, there were statues of seraphim in the lords temple built by Davidic king Solomon,- to whom Jesus aligns himself in several regards. so clearly not the blanket ban and meaning you assume.

We do not create gods out of statues, or worship them, they are there as a likeness and reminder.

 

[Jeff_56]

a few of hundreds of thousands or even millions of the testimony of those set free from the demons >>
(everyone in the truth of christ jesus is shown the antichrist nature of the roman heresy and heirarchy)
(including martin luther.... once he was freed from the demonism of the rcc)
....
Catholics as well as the Reformers pointed to the office of the Papacy as responsible for the fallen state of the church as they considered the conduct of those in power had grown so spiritually or morally corrupt to the point that it was called the AntiChrist power by those within as well as outside of the church.[15][16][17]
The 95 Theses, circa 1517. Written in protest by Martin Luther against Church abuse.


....
Main article: Constantine the Great and Christianity
Many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, and Cotton Mather, felt the early church had been led into apostasy by the Papacy and identified it as the Antichrist.[18] The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume "Magdeburg Centuries" to discredit the papacy and identify the pope as the Antichrist.
....
Martin Luther stated, "We are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and so great men have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly."
....
John Calvin stated, "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that Paul's words (In II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." [SUP][27][/SUP]

 

[notuptome]

We do not create gods out of statues, or worship them, they are there as a likeness and reminder.

sigh...so say you but what you do does not match what you say.

NT Christians worship God in Spirit and in truth. At least that's what they are supposed to do.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mikeuk]

sigh...so say you but what you do does not match what you say.

It most certainly does in my case, and you have no evidence or right to contest that.

NT Christians worship God in Spirit and in truth. At least that's what they are supposed to do.


For the cause of Christ
Roger

Good to know we are Christians then, since so do we.

 

[notuptome]

It most certainly does in my case, and you have no evidence or right to contest that.

That is precisely what we are endeavoring to determine. So far your case is far from proven.

Good to know we are Christians then, since so do we.

You are not a Christian on that claim alone. We need to examine your soteriology as Rome has it all wrong.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[ThomistColin]

We need to examine your soteriology as Rome has it all wrong.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Then so do the Orthodox, the Coptics, the Syrian Orthodox, many Anglicans and Protestants too. You would write off over a billion of your brothers and sisters because they don't agree with your doctrine.

 

[mikeuk]

That is precisely what we are endeavoring to determine. So far your case is far from proven.You are not a Christian on that claim alone. We need to examine your soteriology as Rome has it all wrong.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And who are " you" and by what authority ( please quote scripture) does notuptome have power to bind meanings of doctrine?
I Don't seem to remember the mention of Roger or notuptome anywhere in any verse I can find - I can find a peter the rock given keys to bind though.

I also can find this - in proverbs 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not depend on your own understanding.

So why am I to trust your private understanding?

Typical argument on this thread from all contributors goes
Step 1 <anti catholic rant>
Step 2 me demonstrating from the catechism, that catholics don't actually believe what you say we do, or more rarely when the point is a fair one, me giving scriptural backing for it - generally me taking the obvious meaning, you taking an obscure one - often pointing out to people that Luther did not believe the words anti catholics put in his mouth.
Step 3 <back to unreasoned anti catholic rhetoric or ad hominem eg stating I don't believe what I clearly do, or so sotieriology all wrong>

And there is the problem - on my journey from mainstream Protestant to evangelical to home in RCC , I discovered that most of the anti catholic rhetoric is mythical or wrong, and the parts that are right have strong justification., which is why I and many ministers and staunchly anti catholic theologians came back to Catholicism in the end.

This forum annoys me. I ask questions not to defend Catholicism, but to find out why others have come to believe it means something else.

I have asked specifically - Matthew 18:18 that someone being spoken to by Jesus is delegated the power to bind in heaven, and later the power to forgive sins. The text is unarguable. The only question is who was given the power, and when it is used. NONE of you ever answer with anything credible, just you do not like the catholic version , which at least is compatible with the text, and the keys as a reference to davidic kingdom is how Jews would have understood him, since they always looked for meaning in the Old Testament and were obsessive about their own history

Even Luther and Calvin believed peter was special.

So please do us the respect of a ( credible ) alternative " who was given the the power to bind and forgive sins" rather than just objecting to the catholic version. This entire thread has done little except to prove to me that most of the anti catholic rhetoric is born of hatred or simply passing on second hand assumptions, none of it born in fact or scripture.

I have answered all your questions in scripture, so time for you all to do the same.

WHO was given power to bind in heaven and forgive sins, and when is that power exercised.

 

[KenAllan]

Romans 3:9-12 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
[SUP]10 [/SUP] as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
[SUP]12 [/SUP] ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
Romans 3:23 (NASB)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Hebrews 4:15 (NASB)
[SUP]15 [/SUP] For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Every person born is a sinner. The ONLY person born who was not a sinner was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was tempted but did not sin. Jesus Christ was the only person who was sinless.

One of the main Catholic Doctrines was that Mary was born sinless. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary had to be sinless to keep Jesus sinless while in the womb of Mary. BUT, Mary's mother did not have to be sinless to keep Mary sinless.

Its interesting that the Catholic Church teaches that God could not keep Jesus Christ sinless without Mary being sinless, but yet God was able to keep Mary sinless while in the womb of her mother who was a sinner.

The Catholic Church is saying that Mary is greater than God because its through her that only could God keep Jesus sinless.

The Catholic Church is teaching that Mary is greater than God because God could not keep Jesus Christ sinless without Mary being sinless. Do you see how the Catholics believe Mary is a god! They actually believe Mary is part of the Trinity! The Catholics do believe that Jesus needs the help of Mary to do the will of the Father.

This is why the Catholic Church is not a True Christian Church today. They have walked away from God in the last 150 years with all their false Doctrines about Mary.

 

[mikeuk]

Another one failed to answer my question.

Ken. I have answered everyone else, including mary questions if you look

Nobody ever answers mine, if you want to persuade me, do it with facts.

Someone Jesus was speaking to in Matthew ,has been delegated the power to "bind and loose in heaven", and later the power to "forgive and retain sins"

If you do not like catholic version - the obvious considering he was speaking to peter - then who?
-Who are they that were given those powers?
-What is the meaning of the power they were given?
-How and when is it exercised?

Simple questions
If nobody can answer that, then It confirms what I have found to be true.
Anticatholic arguments melt away on close inspection. Even the OP quotes a non catholic belief, in an attempt to demonstrate what they believe is false, yet catholics do not believe what he says , so is a completely fallacious argument. Sure there are catholics off the rails, but judge by the catechism, not what they do!

If catholicism is as wrong as you all claim, you will have no problem with my most basic of questions. What is the meaning of those passages of Matthew if not the catholic one?

 

[notuptome]

And who are " you" and by what authority ( please quote scripture) does notuptome have power to bind meanings of doctrine?
I Don't seem to remember the mention of Roger or notuptome anywhere in any verse I can find - I can find a peter the rock given keys to bind though.

I also can find this - in proverbs 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not depend on your own understanding.

So why am I to trust your private understanding?

Typical argument on this thread from all contributors goes
Step 1 <anti catholic rant>
Step 2 me demonstrating from the catechism, that catholics don't actually believe what you say we do, or more rarely when the point is a fair one, me giving scriptural backing for it - generally me taking the obvious meaning, you taking an obscure one - often pointing out to people that Luther did not believe the words anti catholics put in his mouth.
Step 3 <back to unreasoned anti catholic rhetoric or ad hominem eg stating I don't believe what I clearly do, or so sotieriology all wrong>

And there is the problem - on my journey from mainstream Protestant to evangelical to home in RCC , I discovered that most of the anti catholic rhetoric is mythical or wrong, and the parts that are right have strong justification., which is why I and many ministers and staunchly anti catholic theologians came back to Catholicism in the end.

This forum annoys me. I ask questions not to defend Catholicism, but to find out why others have come to believe it means something else.

I have asked specifically - Matthew 18:18 that someone being spoken to by Jesus is delegated the power to bind in heaven, and later the power to forgive sins. The text is unarguable. The only question is who was given the power, and when it is used. NONE of you ever answer with anything credible, just you do not like the catholic version , which at least is compatible with the text, and the keys as a reference to davidic kingdom is how Jews would have understood him, since they always looked for meaning in the Old Testament and were obsessive about their own history

Even Luther and Calvin believed peter was special.

So please do us the respect of a ( credible ) alternative " who was given the the power to bind and forgive sins" rather than just objecting to the catholic version. This entire thread has done little except to prove to me that most of the anti catholic rhetoric is born of hatred or simply passing on second hand assumptions, none of it born in fact or scripture.

I have answered all your questions in scripture, so time for you all to do the same.

WHO was given power to bind in heaven and forgive sins, and when is that power exercised.

The Lamb of God has the power to forgive sin. It is exercised when a sinner comes under conviction of his, Christ's righteousness and the Fathers judgment on sin. Gods grace is how we are saved. The blood of Christ makes atonement for our sin. God pities us or we all would be condemned forever in the lake of fire. We know these things because of what is written in the bible.

Rome teaches that you must be baptized with water. You must be confirmed. You are then are able to receive the communion elements. You must make a confession of your sins to the priest. It is through the sacraments that grace is received. At least according to Rome. The bible states that grace is received by faith and that faith comes from hearing the word of God.

You tell me you are a Christian. How did you become a Christian? The path that Rome chose or the biblical path?

As special as Peter was he was not Christ. As special as Paul was he was not Christ. As special as Luther was he was not Christ. No man no matter how special he is perceived to be is Christ. Only one man was ever the Christ of God. He was crucified for our sin.

God bound sin to man when He decreed that the soul that sinneth it shall die. Christ forgave sin when He decreed that he who believeth in Me shall not see death but is passed from death unto life and life eternal.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mikeuk]

ANOTHER one who failed to answer the question
Roger

I accept you do not like the catholic answer to the question Roger, but as I point out Protestants always dodge the question.

WHO did Jesus delegate the power to " bind in heaven " and " forgive and retain sins" in Matthew?
What was the power, and who exercises it and when?

Simple question, never answered.
Must be easy for you if you think catholics have it all wrong.

 

[notuptome]

I accept you do not like the catholic answer to the question Roger, but as I point out Protestants always dodge the question.

WHO did Jesus delegate the power to " bind in heaven " and " forgive and retain sins" in Matthew?
What was the power, and who exercises it and when?

Simple question, never answered.
Must be easy for you if you think catholics have it all wrong.

The simple answer that you will never receive is every born again believer who gives a testimony of what Christ has done for them.

There is no biblical command to bind or forgive sin. There is a biblical command to be a witness for Christ. There is a biblical command to disciple the nations.

Believers are the key. Believers have a testimony for Christ. Believers are the witnesses Christ established to tell the world the good news of salvation by grace through faith. Salvation wrought in the blood of Christ and His victory over death and the grave. Christ's triumph seen is His bodily resurrection and glorified body.

Jesus delegated the power to everyone who is saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. I can see Jesus telling Peter that yes Peter you have a testimony and a witness for Me that will draw men unto Me for salvation and turn others away into perdition. A responsibility we all carry to this day.

Doesn't leave any room for Rome's false path which can only lead to destruction.

Tell me how do you teach men shall be saved? Or will you once and again resort to circular reasoning like an Islamic? Rome must be right if Rome is wrong resort to Rome must be right.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mikeuk]

There is no biblical command to bind or forgive

Roger

Wrong, and stop changing the subject.

Last chance to answer matthew 18:18, john 20:23
If you do not like the catholic answer, who is given the power to do what?

I NEVER get a straight answer, always anticatholic rhetoric.

So I conclude, as I did as Protestant and evangelical, you don't have any answers.
You don't like the catholic powers of peter, but fail to provide alternative meaning.

At least Luther and Calvin were honest enough to say THEY believed it applied to peter, but then questioned succession, not the obvious interpretation of keys, and Luther also recognised that the Catholic Church had a special place, he just did not agree with all of the doctrine.

So I conclude as I did a few years ago - that the anticatholic rhetoric and arguments melt away on close examination.

I am too busy to spend more time here soon, and anyway I fail to see the point, you don't have any answers for me.