Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[WestminsterMan]

Those are harsh accusations, and unfounded.
My mother and father are both devout Catholics. Do I hate them? No, I love them very much, as I do the rest of my family. Your accusations are totally baseless and without any foundation. They are false accusations.

It is the doctrine of the RCC that I detest, not the people. I don't hate any person. But I do hate false doctrine, heretical teaching, damnable heresy that sends people on their way to hell. That I do hate. Not the people ensnared by it.

Your attitude belies something very different. Deny it if you like but its patently obvious to me at least - especially when you attempt to justify the hate that you do.

Whatever...

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In your former post you were referring to "the Word" as Catholic or from the RCC, which is entirely wrong. The RCC had nothing to do with canonization of the Word of God. Throughout most of history it had more to do with its destruction than with its preservation. I stick to my story that it was the apostles and early churches that both had the Word and preserved the Word, not a universal apostate church.

Though I believe The Catholic Church Canonized the Bible. And I believe History shows that is the truth. That wasn't what I was talking about with regard to Peter. If you go back and re-read my post you will see that I was saying that you take the Catholic word for Peter being Martyred in Rome but not that he taught there. Which means you pick and choose what you want to believe despite the source.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just to clarify something...

In our last "exchange" you said...



Allow me to ADD the word "alone"....right here! (as taught in Epesians 2:8-10)

Also you said.....





Bro.Greg:saint:

Funny, I looked all over that passage and did not see the word alone. Just for reference let me post it here.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them

. I don't see Waldo and I don't see the word alone.
Funny you think its there.

I can however show you where the word alone is in conjunction with faith.

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone

 

[WestminsterMan]

Just to clarify something...
snip...

Allow me to ADD the word "alone"....right here! (as taught in Epesians 2:8-10)snip...

Bro.Greg:saint:

Correct - you are ADDING the word "alone" to scripture as it only exists in one place, and that is as an admonition against it.

James 2:24
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

You see, you cannot actually hold to scripture alone when you interject something into scripture that scripture actually does not say (if you are to be consistent that is). Thus, we have in one posting the down fall of two man-made doctrines... those of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides.

Oh no ladies...

WM

 

[BobRyan]

Correct - you are ADDING the word "alone" to scripture as it only exists in one place, and that is as an admonition against it.

James 2:24
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

You see, you cannot actually hold to scripture alone when you interject something into scripture that scripture actually does not say (if you are to be consistent that is). Thus, we have in one posting the down fall of two man-made doctrines... those of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides.

Oh no ladies...

WM

I beg to differ.

But first I do agree that you only find "by faith alone" in James 2 - though in Romans 3 the text comes close to it when Paul speaks of "faith apart from works of the law". Rom 3:28.

By "the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified" Rom 3:20

But in favor of your point is that Paul's use of "works of the law" in Romans 3 whereby no one is justified - is works of the lost the one who is not justified.

In Romans 3 the justification spoken of is that which is applicable to the lost - once they turn and choose salvation.

The point is that no works will save the lost person.

But the justification that you see in James 2 - for Abraham pertains to the works of a saved person "you seen then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".

There the justification is like Christ mentioned in Matt 7 - "by their fruits you shall know them" - the good tree is SEEN to be a good tree by its fruits.

But Christ argues that a bad tree does not produce good fruits (good works) even so a bad tree can never "make itself good" by trying to attach good fruit.

=================================

However in your argument that both by faith alone - and sola scriptura have failed you have undone your own Church model.

Because you argued that in order to salvage by faith alone from James 2 - so that you still have by faith alone doctrine - and can ignore what James 2 says to the contrary - is via man-made-tradition.

In making that argument you are admitting to the Mark 7 policy of the Jews in replacing the teaching of scripture with their own traditions and claiming that such a thing is valid to do.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Though I believe The Catholic Church Canonized the Bible. And I believe History shows that is the truth. That wasn't what I was talking about with regard to Peter. If you go back and re-read my post you will see that I was saying that you take the Catholic word for Peter being Martyred in Rome but not that he taught there. Which means you pick and choose what you want to believe despite the source.

I may have to reread some posts as well.
However I will emphasize this much: there is no evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that Peter was ever in Rome, except to be martyred by the Roman government. There is no evidence that he was ever a pastor, bishop, leader, etc., of any kind of church or organization in Rome. He was never recognized by Paul or any other person in the Bible as being in Rome.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic: Can’t you read history you idiot!
Protestant: Can’t you read your Bible you pagan!
Catholic: Your epistemological independence belies your rebellion against the true church!
Protestant: Your quoting of a dead guy belies your following “the doctrine of men”!
Catholic: your mother was a hamster!
Protestant: Your father smelt of elderberries!
Catholic: Donatist!
Protestant: Pelagian!
Catholic: We should have burned more of you!
Protestant: We should have beheaded more of you!

While there is a bit of humor in that.

It does raise one interesting question - of the 1260 years of dark ages persecution there was a small window where in some countries for short periods of time - Protestants actually had the control of the civil government taken away from the Catholic hierarchy and began doing unto Catholic clergy and citizens some of the things that had been done unto the Protestants.

However since that time - no Protestant church "Be they Lutheran or Anglican" have claimed that the torment and death unleashed on Catholics during those relative short windows in history for a few countries - was "infallible" or "correct" or "infallibly correct' or any such thing.

Yet the Catholic Canon law calling for the "extermination of heretics" by an ecumenical council of Lateran IV is to this very day held to be infallible.

Surely there is not a single Catholic on this board - who is a former Baptist - that can sign up for that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Your attitude belies something very different. Deny it if you like but its patently obvious to me at least - especially when you attempt to justify the hate that you do.

Whatever...

WM

What is your attitude toward the religion of those who first terrorized the passengers aboard the commercial airliners they hi-jacked, and then flew them into the twin towers of the WTC, killing thousands of Americans?
What about the religion of those two bombers that caused the deaths and so many injuries at the recent Boston marathon?
And you know this list can go on and on: Osama ben Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.

It is the religion I hate.
Some of my very good friends are Muslim. Not everyone is a terrorist. The religion is a Satanic religion. I pray for those ensnared by it, especially those that are close to me. But the religion itself I hate. You need to see that difference.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It does raise one interesting question - of the 1260 years of dark ages persecution there was a small window where in some countries for short periods of time - Protestants actually had the control of the civil government taken away from the Catholic hierarchy and began doing unto Catholic clergy and citizens some of the things that had been done unto the Protestants.

Yet the Catholic Canon law calling for the "extermination of heretics" by an ecumenical council of Lateran IV is to this very day held to be infallible.



in Christ,

Bob

Canon calling for the so called "extermination of heretics" is a purposeful mistranslation of the Latin. It called to expel the heretics from the land. You are relying on bad information.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I may have to reread some posts as well.
However I will emphasize this much: there is no evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that Peter was ever in Rome, except to be martyred by the Roman government. There is no evidence that he was ever a pastor, bishop, leader, etc., of any kind of church or organization in Rome. He was never recognized by Paul or any other person in the Bible as being in Rome.

Let me ask you a simple question. From the bible can we determine how long Paul was in Rome before he was executed? If so. What is the time period? And in that time did he not preach and teach? And if So. The simple result could be extended to Peter as well. Again. You choose to pick and sort through which facts you want which supports you already held belief rather than looking for the facts.

 

[DHK]

Let me ask you a simple question. From the bible can we determine how long Paul was in Rome before he was executed? If so. What is the time period? And in that time did he not preach and teach? And if So. The simple result could be extended to Peter as well. Again. You choose to pick and sort through which facts you want which supports you already held belief rather than looking for the facts.

Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans ca. 57 A.D. (Note: no mention of Peter)
In his epistle he expresses his desire to visit Rome. Four years later he ended up in Rome. His voyage to Rome is described in the last few chapters of Acts. He lived in his own hired house for two years. Then, (62-63 A.D.) he wrote a number of his epistles. He was then freed for a period of time, at which time it is reasonable to believe that he may have traveled to Spain. He is imprisoned again between 66-68 A.D.
His last letter is 2Timothy, in which he writes to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
--My departure is my death. "To be offered" is to be sacrificed, to be martyred.

2 Timothy 4:16 in my first defence no one stood with me, but all forsook me, (may it not be reckoned to them!) [Young's]
--He was set free the first time he appeared before Nero's court.

Now it is ca. 68 A.D., and he stands once again before Nero. He is ready to die, and he will. He is found guilty and is beheaded. This we know about Paul.

What do we know about Peter?
First we know that James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem, not Peter.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
--James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. It was him that was giving his sentence (judgment). It was his final decision that mattered.
This council was held ca. 52 A.D.
However, that being said, we do know that Peter was present there.

Most agree that Peter died about the same time that Paul did, 68 A.D.
Again, Paul makes no mention of Peter in his epistle, though Peter mentions Paul in his second epistle. It would be a serious omission on Paul's part not to mention Peter, such an important figure if he was in Rome. Paul even mentions Aquilla and Priscilla where the church met.

The two epistles of Peter were written close together in time (62-63 A.D.).
The first one says that it was written from Babylon.
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
--Peter is writing from Babylon. Look in chapter one. He is writing to the Jewish Christians that have been dispersed abroad. His theme is suffering--those believers that are undergoing persecution, and they were. They were undergoing intense persecution at the hands of Nero.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--It is natural to take Babylon as a literal place considering who he is writing to. He also was one of the ones scattered by this persecution. Eventually, in just a few short years he also would be taken to Rome and martyred for his faith, just as Paul was.
He spent no time there as a pastor or bishop of any church.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
It does raise one interesting question - of the 1260 years of dark ages persecution there was a small window where in some countries for short periods of time - Protestants actually had the control of the civil government taken away from the Catholic hierarchy and began doing unto Catholic clergy and citizens some of the things that had been done unto the Protestants.

Yet the Catholic Canon law calling for the "extermination of heretics" by an ecumenical council of Lateran IV is to this very day held to be infallible.

Canon calling for the so called "extermination of heretics" is a purposeful mistranslation of the Latin. It called to expel the heretics from the land. You are relying on bad information.

Not according to the Catholic Church - and not according to Latin.

[FONT=&quot]Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100[/FONT]

The question:
A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony.

These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”[FONT=&quot]

==============================================[/FONT]

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
[FONT=&quot]Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]-------------------------------------------[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In this next example we see that "exterminate' brings with it a death toll of tens of millions 25 milliion? 50 Million? 75 Million?
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674[/FONT]
Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines.
On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost.
That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-----------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[FONT=&quot]Lateran IV on extermination
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The Fourth Lateran Council[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the council that dogmatized transubstantiation, offered indulgences to those who would "exterminate heretics" and participate in a Crusade. Since this council refers to the RCC's influence over the state (John 19:11), it points to the fact that the state was acting at the command of the RCC. The council declared (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c3.html):

[/FONT]Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff [the Pope], that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those
who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.[/FONT]


--================================



AS for the word “exterminate” –
The etymological origins of the word exterminate are found in the Latin word "exterminare,"


Moneantur autem et inducantur et si necesse fuerit per censuram ecclesiasticam compellantur saeculares potestates, quibuscumque fungantur officiis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt et haberi fideles, it a pro defensione fidei praestent publice iuramentum, quod de terris suae iurisdictioni subiectis universos haereticos ab ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus exterminare studebunt, ita quod amodo quandocumque quis fuerit in potestatem sive spiritualem sive temporalem assumptus, hoc teneatur capitulum iuramento firmare.

========================

Pope Gregory IX, Council Tolosanum, 1229 A.D.:
"We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament ... We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular." "'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out."
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura:
"Socialism, Communism, clandestine societies, Bible societies... pests of this sort must be destroyed by all means."

 

[saturneptune]

Not according to the Catholic Church - and not according to Latin.

[FONT=&quot]Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100[/FONT]

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony.

These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”[FONT=&quot]

==============================================[/FONT]

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
[FONT=&quot]Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]-------------------------------------------[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In this next example we see that "exterminate' brings with it a death toll of tens of millions 25 milliion? 50 Million? 75 Million?
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674[/FONT]
Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines.
On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost.
That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-----------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]


in Christ,

Bob

Very good and accurate post of the Catholic Church. From inception, the church was based on evil premises, (such as political reasons and false doctrine). The history of the Catholic Church is no better than the reign of Hitler, or the Muslim religion.

Everyone forgets the question, who preserved the New Testement Church. It most certainly was not the RCC. Since there were no Protestant churches before the Reformation, the only possible answer is the local, autonomous churches that stood along side of the RCC for well over 1000 years. The Catholic Church was persecuting the very church they claim to represent. To be fair, people like John Calvin after the Reformation also persecuted the local, autononous churches.

There have been several threads that have been created on the premise that the RCC has some redeemable good in it. For example, the thread as to whether one Pope can call another Pope a heretic or ungodly. That is almost comical if it were not so tragic. How does one distinguish between to evil entities as being Christlike. The same can be said of the Crusades. Any part of the Crusades which the RCC directed, that side was no more or less evil than the Muslims they opposed. To be fighting for the cause of Christ, one must know Christ.

From day one, the RCC (110 or 400 AD, another thread) has produced nothing but a trail of destruction. They have done everything in the book, murder, torture, extortion, theft, false doctrine, unholy political alliances, and just being a cult in general. Think of the countless misery that this church has caused. How many families?

 

[saturneptune]

Your attitude belies something very different. Deny it if you like but its patently obvious to me at least - especially when you attempt to justify the hate that you do.

Whatever...

WM

It is not hate, it is righteous anger. What do you expect a Christian to do? Let the poison of catholicism infect every area of the Lord's work? The church was founded on principles of evil, and has opposed the work of the Lord for almost 2000 years. The pillars of the church are torture, murder, false doctrine, and a false Gospel. The Crusades were not a Holy War for Christ, but a campaign of murder and extermination of innocent people. You see, to be fighting for the cause of Christ, one must know Christ. It was nothing but another political maneuver by the Roman Catholic Cult. Their side was no better or worse than the Muslim side. The RCC persecuted the very church they claim to have preserved, the true NT church Christ promised to preserve. The local autonomous churches were preserving the church.

Evil from day one.................Even if Peter were the first pope, which he was not as proven quite well by DHK, why is that important to you? Catholics are more worried about genealogy and links than they are to a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. It is an exact duplicate of the Pharisees being related to Abraham. The RCC became a facilitator of power consolidation of evil, worldly regimes all over Europe. It was a total meld, a marriage in hell, of an evil church and state, almost a Satanic theocracy.

There was a brief period of even Protestants persecuting Anabaptists, but nothing like the Catholics. Baptists and their ancestors bothered no one, but were only interested in the preservation of the church.

There has got to be a special place in hell for al the former Popes. Aside from not being Christians, all these Popes, they have to be buring for crimes against humanity. What is worse, the fifty million the Catholic Church had put to death, or the six million Hitler did?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

No and Yes....

Funny, I looked all over that passage and did not see the word alone. Just for reference let me post it here. . I don't see Waldo and I don't see the word alone.
Funny you think its there.

I can however show you where the word alone is in conjunction with faith.

What does "Waldo" have to do with anything...I fail to see the humor in anything here.

No...the word "alone" isn't in the the passage I referenced.......but YES the concept and TRUTH that salvation is BY grace THROUGH faith ALONE & without WORKS (Eph.2:9) is clearly taught there and supported without contradiction by the rest of scripture. Real faith will be EVIDENCED by subsequent good works which is what is taught in James 2 but the true faith is NOT imparted or created BY the works. That is what I was attempting to convey by my comments.


Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I looked at your link and it is no different that Cameron saying he found Jesus' sarcophagus because he found the name Yeshua bar Yoseph on a sarcophagus in Jerusalem. Do you believe that? If not why believe the link you posted? The only reason is not because of evidence but because you want to believe Jesus rose from the dead but you don't want to believe there is any connection between Peter and Rome. So you are clearly showing bias.

Was Bellarmino Begatti, a 20th century archaeologist and Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order who was written about in the article I referenced also biased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellarmino_Bagatti

I've also got more about apostolic succession, but that's for another thread.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Obviously you've never been to a monastery. Just saying the simple lifestyle is certainly in play.

There are exceptions, such as Francis of Assisi, whom I admire.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Note to you: The term "Romanist" has always been used as an epithet by hate groups throughout the history of this country – not excluding the KKK. This is why I doubt your educational "credentials" (well, it's only one of the reasons to be accurate) because if you really were a student of history, you would know this.

Look – I know you can use it however you want, but it's still hateful and insulting to Catholics and this is why you are using it. You aren't fooling anyone. As I told you before; name calling is indicative of intellectual cowardice. Just keep it up – it makes you look foolish and only serves to reveal your true nature.

WM

You can doubt my educational credentials just like you deny scripture. It still does not change the facts or existence of either.

As I said, I use the word "Romanist" because "Catholicism" is not confined to them. I find the use of the word "Catholic" as confined to the Roman Church insulting, and so would the EOC, Old Catholics, and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans.

I am not concerned with what the KKK did. T lump me in with them reveals your true nature.

BTW, I haven't done any name calling yet. Would you like me to start?

I have had a good relationship with Roman Catholics here, including TS and Walter, and I expect that to continue despite being sidetracked by the likes of you.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No offense intended.

You have used your credentials several times to establish credibility. It is not unreasonable to ask for further details in order to understand reference points. A degree from Asbury or Gordon-Cornwll comes from a different context than Luther Rice or Southwestern Baptist. Was it a Southern Baptist Seminary, independent Baptist, or other? U.S or foreign?

It is a common question in the workplace, so why not ask it here?

No offense taken.

I am careful to guard my privacy, and I don't trust the internet in that regard.

I will answer what you asked, though: It was not Southern Baptist or Independent Baptist, so I'll just say it was "other", as you asked it. And it is U.S., although they have an international presence.