I will wait.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
Thanks for the kind words.
Wow, I take back what I said, Neo! u/CrusaderPepe spammed you this time a lot worse than he ever spammed me.
He posted three full meaty articles all supposing that "Catholicism is true", but since I proved at length last month that by "Catholicism" he means whatever he says (instead of saying it means only what Catholic magisterium teaches without his additional interpretation), this is misleading. The Roman Catholic Church can be the "primary" "true church" without all the implications he adds to it. If he only asked Protestants to agree the RCC is the primary true church, he'd get more takers, but he asks for more than that.
He insists Protestantism has four main errors: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, denial of Real Presence, and belittling Mary. I answered Scripture and faith are alone in one sense and not in another, and it's not useful to insist that different eucharist or hyperdulia practices. Rather than dialogue or seek to understand, he insisted there was no other way of understanding it than his article. He ignored my 18 proofs that the RCC has taught "sola fide", for instance.
He insists that the RCC having the bishop of Rome proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit that Rome is the primary church region without admitting papal supremacy. Having the bishop of Rome doesn't necessarily mean that the bishop can't be wrong; in 1965 he admitted that his predecessor was wrong (in 1054) to effectively excommunicate billions of Orthodox Christians. So having Rome is not a proof that other churches are in error or that the pope is supreme or infallible or any such intended corollary.
He insists that the RCC having the Real Presence doctrine proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit there are several isomorphic ways to talk about Real Presence and they do not conflict. I simplify this by joking that the wafer becomes my body and my body is Christ's body, so I only differ with the RCC by a few minutes. So having a Real Presence doctrine is not a proof that other churches are in error or that consubstantiation or symbolic presence is false or any such intended corollary.
So, Neo, the problems are (1) Catholics like this routinely defend both the true believers who represent some part of Catholicism (somewhere between 0% and 100%), and all the folk errors they add to magisterium that they don't realize, making it hard to respond to such a defense levelly or usefully; and (2) Catholics like this compound the error by showing astonishing self-unawareness, which might arise from constantly sitting in judgment on all things and then judging it's more righteous to "speak one's peace" for many myriads of words than to just be personable and able to interact with others winsomely. If you want to pick on his "defense", I'd suggest starting with my link above where I list 18 times the Catholic magisterium, including its popes and Bibles, has taught Sola Fide; that might get his interest the fastest. Maybe I'll post it to c/catholic too.
Well, to be honest here... I am not that knowledgeable about the specifics on different denominations, and I am not even a native English-speaker, so it took me some time to check what some of the words meant. But, as I can understand it, after I checked the meanings of the words, I do agree with your position, as much as I am aware on Protestantism and Catholicism.
I also checked his replies and he is definitely not as coherent and knowledgeable as you portray him. Not that you're making any mistakes, but I admire how you present his stance on the debate, while not even focusing on the petty insults he is constantly using in his comments. This is a remarkable composure from you, I must say.
I would be studying the differences in the different denominations in more detail, to fully grasp what you are saying. But regarding your statement that "maybe" you should be posting this in c/catholic... Friend... You have so much knowledge and understanding that you present in comments. You should definitely be posting a lot, and not even in this specific forum. I see your recent posts are mainly great quotes from the Bible, but your second-to-last post is showing great understanding, and the details are what is very useful for people, who study Christianity. In my opinion, you should be focusing more on posting these type of breakdowns, and explanations. I am not saying you should stop with the Biblical quotes, but you have such knowledge and understanding that is vital for the Christians, who want to believe, but don't fully grasp many of the concepts, like me. Perhaps I am just basing this incorrectly on your last posts, but you should definitely write more free text, or just keep writing free text posts.
Thanks for the encouragement.
There's a lot of writing to be done, and time and logistics are a factor involved. But God's been gracious so far with letting me put out these insights so I will continue to churn them out as he sees fit.