Catholics divided

"Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow...Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.... Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2264-2265, 2267)

 

'Baptist pope', your board-name, in fact, betrays the very-weakness of Protestantism, that "every man does what is right in his own eyes." Every man (taking Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion)BECOMES a Pope! In your system, WHO is it that has the final word regarding doctrine or Biblical interpretation? Don't tell me "the Bible interprets itself," for the very-number of Protestant denominations shows this to be a fallacy. (This post "Catholics Divided" is a joke. Look at the Protestant world!) Historically, a bishop did indeed have that 'last word'. Bishops decided doctrinal matters, crafted creeds, and decided the New Testament canon. And their word, collectively, WAS the last word. Look at the 'mess' the Protestant world has become because it has rejected this BIBLICAL and historical formula. As far as 'assurance' goes, why don't you READ 1 John. "Knowing", in this context is certainly possible, IF you are obeying the Lord! The 'fruit will show the root'. One can have 'blessed assurance' that "Jesus is mine,"yet, that doesn't follow that one will always be faithful. A 'sheep' can wander-off.
Your name, 'Baptist Pope' is an apt one. You have 'wandered off' from the orthodox/apostolic faith. But it's not too late to come-back to the sheepfold.

 

Problem #1: Not using the correct definition of Sola Scriptura ('final', not 'only').

Problem #2: You are equating something to protestantism that is true of catholics without acknowledging that fact.

I'll explain below.

I have already pointed this out to Carson, Grace Save and Trying 2 Understand, so now I will do that same for you.

Catholics quite often claim that the non-catholics are self determining Christians. All of us non-catholics decide for ourselves what is right and wrong because we do not have a pope to tell us what is right or wrong. Therein lies the problem, the pope can only tell you so much, thereby making catholics self determining christians as well.

For arguments sake, lets take the cursing topic. What is a curse word? It has been pointed out that the only clear reference to cursing (other than Lords Name cursing) is in Colossians 3:8. Though, it is vague. What is 'filthy communication' or 'filty words'? Where is the Pope's infallible list of dirty words that all catholics can't say? If the pope or the catholic church (infallibly) does not produce such a list, then each and every catholic HAS to decide for him/herself what is considered a dirty word, thereby making it wrong to say that word. That was just a simple example...but it is a valid argument and shows the inconsistency of the catholic position.

As a side note, if an infallible position is inconsistent, it is invalid. Why? Because inconsistency is contradictory; contradictory shows a discrepant nature; disgrepancies need correcting; needing correcting means not correct; not correct, even just once, disproves the claim to infallibility.

This is an invalid argument. You cannot say something is not true, wrong or bad because of the effect of that thing. You must prove that the 'thing' itself is wrong.

For instance, I cannot say that sex is bad because of the number of people having premarital sex. I must prove that sex is bad. So, you have to prove that the bible does not interpret itself by showing scripture. Also, you must prove that there is indeed a link between the belief that the bible interprets itself and the number of protestant denominations. If you do not demonstrate this link, you cannot use it as you have no proof to justify your claim.

What you are using is a common causal fallacy known as Joint Effect (not to mention.

What happens when bishops disagreed?

You must prove that protestants have rejected the biblical formula. There are many on this board who would disagree and state that it is infact catholics who have strayed. Assertions require proof.


jason

 

Pay close attention to paragraphs four and five.

In my opinion, this was the beginning of the Catholic church as we know it today. When the bishops argued, the bishop of Rome made an unsubstantiated claim to primacy over every else. This doctrine clearly didn't always exist, so why does Catholicism teach that the Bishop of Rome always has existed?