Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So you believe in Sola fide?

That is not part of the Gospel. That is a Protestant invention.
And you don't really believe what you wrote because you know that sacraments are necessary for salvation; ccc 1129, all rc dogmas are necessary also right? Can I deny Mary as theotokos (which I do) and be saved? What you wrote and what your church officially teaches are two different things.

One is not permitted to deny what they know to be true. Note that "know" is the key word.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Yes, false statements.

1) "If you have a false Gospel" is question begging. That is what we are debating on this site. It has not been shown that the Gospel Catholics preach is false. You just assume it.

2) I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about healing and "rushed prayers from the pulpit." Are you talking about the Sacrament of the Sick? If so, that Sacrament is not celebrated from the pulpit.

3) In Persona Christi applies only in Sacramental Celebrations. Certainly the lifestyle of a priest should reflect the teachings of Christ. However, In Persona Christi is a teaching that specifically refers to the Sacramental Celebrations. It is Christ who celebrates the Sacrament through the priest. The teaching protects the integrity of the Sacraments. In other words--the focus of the teaching is on the integrity of the Sacraments; not the moral worthiness of the priest.


First of all, no bishop needs permission from Rome to report an allegation to law enforcement, investigate the allegation, and remove a priest from ministry. The pope is irrelevant here. The pope only needs to get involved when a bishop wants to "laicize" a priest. When a priest is laicized, they not just removed from their ministerial duties, they are relived of their priestly obligations. Thus, the pope does not need to be involved at all when it comes to accused priests. Bishops have full authority to do whatever they need to do and always have.

The pope would need to get involved, however, if a bishop is accused. The biggest problem in the RCC right now--is that there is no mechanism of accountability for the bishops themselves. This was the problem in 2002 and it remains the problem. I will fully grant that this is one of the biggest weaknesses of how the Church has addressed the problem of abuse. The bishops--either do not get, or get it and are intentionally ignoring it--that the bishops themselves are the problem. Reforms need to be directed to the bishops themselves at this point. This is where the bishops appear to be tone deaf. And the thing is--they get sued and sued and sued----and they still do not get it. What is it going to take to wake them up? I do not know---but----in any case, it is the bishops themselves that are the problem right now.


Yeah, don't talk to me about the "Royal Commission." After that joke of a Kangaroo Court he went through, you want to talk to me about a "Royal Commission?" They put an innocent man in jail; he was convicted not on the evidence, as there was none, but on the jury's desire to find a scapegoat. Fortunately the Australian SCOTUS overturned his conviction. The point is that after that Kangaroo circus he went through---I am sure you can understand why I would treat anything on the Catholic Church from Australia with skepticism.


I do not accept this characterization of the sex abuse scandal. I will agree that the bishops are at fault for the way they handled things however.
No you have a false gospel. That is beyond doubt.

First I never made that claim. You pulled that out of the bag. Pell said laicized priests and Rome reinstalled them. Royal Commission. But popes knew of Marcial and what he was doing.

Bishops have been involved, the bishop of Broome is being investigated as we speak. A priest reported him to the church and was ignored so it is now in the hands of priests.

It was not a kangaroo court and it was not the Royal Commission that put him in jail. Pell was not innocent of knowing boys were being molested. There was the Royal Commission and then there was a criminal court case the two are different. In fact, the report from the Royal Commission concerning Pell was not released because he was facing criminal charges, so that it would not influence criminal proceedings. You obviously do not understand how a Royal Commission works and it was into every institution across Australia. No I don't understand at all. I quoted from pell's own words which I watched. His court case was not televised. Two different things. The Commission was not just into your institution and your ignorance on this topic is showing.

Of course you do not accept the truth, no surprise at all. By the way I mentioned more than child abuse you just try to narrow it down, all the scandals of your institution to one thing and make out it is a small number. That is not the truth and you know it. There were rapes of nuns, there are those priests who slept with a woman and are not married, there are those who have children outside marriage and the homosexuals. You try and fail to minimize the scandals of your institution and Paul is still ignored.
1 Cor 5:11

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people

Just sweep the false claims and teachings, the centuries of sin, the ignoring of the instructions of the apostles and Jesus under the carpet and that shows how far away from Jesus your institution is.
 

Maxtar

Active member
Every sect of the RCC claims they have the truth and claims their leaders are lead by the Holy Spirit and that only they have Him. Yet we see all the different claims of the RCC on these threads and the arguments.
No, every church that is aligned with what the Bishop of Rome believes in exactly the same way. The only deviation comes in the way each can choose to worship, but even then much remains the same.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Where does it say to submit to a false teacher? Jesus and the apostles taught against that.

Yes, they sure did. We are not to submit to false teaching or false teachers. Absolutely.

This is exactly why I am Catholic. Protestants are false teachers. I do not submit to their false teachings.
If the US gov in office tells you that you can no longer pray or read the bible, will you obey that?

Hell no! Note, however, that this is a distinct question from whether lock down orders and restrictions should be obeyed during a time of national crisis. In our nation, Civil Rights may, for a time, be suspended during a time of national crisis. In order to suspend civil rights, the government must show compelling evidence.

If you are asking about restrictions on worship during the pandemic, however, I had no problem with the restrictions on worship--provided they were applied evenly. The problem is that they were not applied evenly. You cannot tell us we can't go to Church because doing so is dangerous, but then turn around and tell people that going to a protest is fine and you support that--because free speech is a right. You cannot tell people they cannot go Church because that is dangerous, but then tell a strip club they can operate because dancing nude is free speech and free speech cannot be restricted. So my problem was that the government was cherry picking the restrictions. Had the government not cherry picked restrictions I would have had no problem with them. But the other problem was that the lock down orders seemed to have no end in sight. You cannot lock people down indefinitely. There needs to be clearly defined goals and a clearly defined start and end date.
Read more scripture - there are many accounts of those of God who disobeyed a pagan ruler. Did the apostles stop teaching about Jesus? How about Stephen? Read the words of Ananias who was sent to Saul/Paul. He still obeyed God. there are many like accounts thru out the OT and NT.

how about Acts 10?

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


Choose this day who you will serve - God or man.

Right; what does any of that have to do with Catholicism?
 

balshan

Well-known member
The Protestants on this site seem oblivious to this point. I have yet to see a Protestant respond to this in a meaningful, intelligent and substantive way.
No the RCs are oblivious to the fact that all are not protestants and every time you use that word we are once again made aware of the smell coming from your institution at the time. We have all seen the disunity among RCs on these threads, no matter how much they pretend it is not so.
 

balshan

Well-known member
No, every church that is aligned with what the Bishop of Rome believes in exactly the same way. The only deviation comes in the way each can choose to worship, but even then much remains the same.
If they did then RCs would agree in these threads, they don't. Therefore that is a false claim. I mean some reject the present pope because he bless idols, others have rejected popes since Vat 11. It is more than the way they worship.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No the RCs are oblivious to the fact that all are not protestants and every time you use that word we are once again made aware of the smell coming from your institution at the time. We have all seen the disunity among RCs on these threads, no matter how much they pretend it is not so.

If you are a Christian, but claiming that you aren't Protestant, that means you are Catholic or Orthodox.

You are not Catholic, I doubt you are Orthodox. That makes you a Protestant; assuming you believe in the full, complete and absolute divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you do not believe in the full, complete and absolute divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but still believe in Jesus, then you would be a pseudo-Christian---like the Mormons or JW's.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No the RCs are oblivious to the fact that all are not protestants and every time you use that word we are once again made aware of the smell coming from your institution at the time. We have all seen the disunity among RCs on these threads, no matter how much they pretend it is not so.
Yes; disunity and respectful disagreement where unity and agreement is not required.

Again, you misunderstand the Catholic claim. We do not claim an infallible churches takes away disagreement and disunity; we claim it takes away JUSTIFICATION for disagreement and disunity---when the Church has clearly spoken definitively on an issue of dispute. The Church moves from uncertainly about things to certainty. Once the Church is certain, she is certain. Once the Church reaches certainty on some point of dispute, the issue is closed.

Thus, for example, the Church was uncertain about the Immaculate Conception. In 1854, the Church moved from uncertainty to certainty and the pope defined the doctrine. Now the case is closed. Dissent on this issue is no longer permitted.
 

balshan

Well-known member
If you are a Christian, but claiming that you aren't Protestant, that means you are Catholic or Orthodox.

You are not Catholic, I doubt you are Orthodox. That makes you a Protestant; assuming you believe in the full, complete and absolute divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you do not believe in the full, complete and absolute divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but still believe in Jesus, then you would be a pseudo-Christian---like the Mormons or JW's.
No it doesn't. Jesus isn't coming for any denomination including yours. He certainly isn't coming for the wolves.

No I am a follower of Jesus and I do not follow any man. That makes your claim false. I am an ex RC thank God He removed me from the clutches of wolves.

If you do not know or understand what i believe about Jesus by now, it shows you do not get the point of my posts. Your insults are noted I had 6 brothers and therefore it is like water off a duck's back.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Yes; disunity and respectful disagreement where unity and agreement is not required.

Again, you misunderstand the Catholic claim. We do not claim an infallible churches takes away disagreement and disunity; we claim it takes away JUSTIFICATION for disagreement and disunity---when the Church has clearly spoken definitively on an issue of dispute. The Church moves from uncertainly about things to certainty. Once the Church is certain, she is certain. Once the Church reaches certainty on some point of dispute, the issue is closed.

Thus, for example, the Church was uncertain about the Immaculate Conception. In 1854, the Church moved from uncertainty to certainty and the pope defined the doctrine. Now the case is closed. Dissent on this issue is no longer permitted.
No it has not been respectful disagreement, do you forget we have witnessed the disagreements. Also it is false claim because accepting the pope is an area where agreement is required and you don't all agree.

Oh I understand what RCs mean by infallible teachings, I have never said it takes away disagreement. This comments in inane as no RCs can list what are dogmas and what are doctrines and what are just wishful thinking.

I love the one says Limbo was doctrine but not dogma and another says it isn't doctrine. Which shows that RCs do not even know what they are meant to believe. It was taught for centuries as the truth in RC schools over the world. It was not taught as a theory only. But then no surprise as the teaching of wolves means it wants to be able to move with the times.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Yes, they sure did. We are not to submit to false teaching or false teachers. Absolutely.

This is exactly why I am Catholic. Protestants are false teachers. I do not submit to their false teachings.


Hell no! Note, however, that this is a distinct question from whether lock down orders and restrictions should be obeyed during a time of national crisis. In our nation, Civil Rights may, for a time, be suspended during a time of national crisis. In order to suspend civil rights, the government must show compelling evidence.

If you are asking about restrictions on worship during the pandemic, however, I had no problem with the restrictions on worship--provided they were applied evenly. The problem is that they were not applied evenly. You cannot tell us we can't go to Church because doing so is dangerous, but then turn around and tell people that going to a protest is fine and you support that--because free speech is a right. You cannot tell people they cannot go Church because that is dangerous, but then tell a strip club they can operate because dancing nude is free speech and free speech cannot be restricted. So my problem was that the government was cherry picking the restrictions. Had the government not cherry picked restrictions I would have had no problem with them. But the other problem was that the lock down orders seemed to have no end in sight. You cannot lock people down indefinitely. There needs to be clearly defined goals and a clearly defined start and end date.


Right; what does any of that have to do with Catholicism?
Exactly what does scripture have to do with Catholicism, nothing at all really. They ignore so much of the apostles writings and the writings of Luke and then claim they are apostolic. What a joke, it reveals the truth about your institution being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
 

Beloved

Active member
No, it isn't a straw man.

You see, it is all fine and dandy to make a nice pious statement like "Well, you know, like, whoever preaches the Truth has the Gospel." That solves nothing and it settles nothing. It is a meaningless statement.

The Protestants on this site seem either unable or unwilling to tell me WHICH Gospel is the TRUE Gospel. Is it the Gospel as Lutherans Preach it? If so, which of the Lutheran sects? Is it the Gospel as Presbyterians understand it? If so, which of the Presbyterian sects? How about the Baptists? If so, which of the Baptists sects? Is it the Gospel as Mennonites understand it?

Is Double Predestination part of the Gospel? How about infant Baptism? How should Sola Scriptura be defined and understood? They way the historic, traditional reformed Protestants understand it or the more extreme Solo Scriptura of the fundamentalists? How should we understand the nature of the Lord's Supper? A symbol, a spiritual presence, or a true presence as Lutherans understand it? Does is mean is, or does it mean "represents?"

Telling me "Well, you know, like, the Holy Spirit teaches you, so, like, just follow His teaching. All true believers are taught by the Spirit" is no answer---because it provides no answer to the questions above. It is a statement as meaningless and vacuous as "Well, like, you know, like, whoever preaches the Truth has the Gospel."

So don't tell me about straw mans. I am not caricaturizing any argument here. I am asking questions that Protestants either cannot or will not answer.
I pray this helps you understand the Gospel romishpopishorganist. Gospel means Good News
1 Corinthians 15

1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.


7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.


Also you can look up Gospel in the index of your Bible.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
If you are a Christian, but claiming that you aren't Protestant, that means you are Catholic or Orthodox.

You are not Catholic, I doubt you are Orthodox. That makes you a Protestant; assuming you believe in the full, complete and absolute divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you do not believe in the full, complete and absolute divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but still believe in Jesus, then you would be a pseudo-Christian---like the Mormons or JW's.
If you are a Christian, but claiming that you aren't Protestant, that means you are Catholic or Orthodox.

Nonsense. I certainly can call myself a christian (which i am) and at the same time deny being a prot or catholic or orthodox. In the first century a christian is all you would call yourself. There was no roman catholic church or eastern orthodox. You may have called yourself one of 'the way' but thats still a nickname as it were for being a follower of Jesus.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Nonsense. I certainly can call myself a christian (which i am) and at the same time deny being a prot or catholic or orthodox. In the first century a christian is all you would call yourself. There was no roman catholic church or eastern orthodox. You may have called yourself one of 'the way' but thats still a nickname as it were for being a follower of Jesus.
Well put
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
No, it isn't a straw man.

You see, it is all fine and dandy to make a nice pious statement like "Well, you know, like, whoever preaches the Truth has the Gospel." That solves nothing and it settles nothing. It is a meaningless statement.

The Protestants on this site seem either unable or unwilling to tell me WHICH Gospel is the TRUE Gospel. Is it the Gospel as Lutherans Preach it? If so, which of the Lutheran sects? Is it the Gospel as Presbyterians understand it? If so, which of the Presbyterian sects? How about the Baptists? If so, which of the Baptists sects? Is it the Gospel as Mennonites understand it?

Is Double Predestination part of the Gospel? How about infant Baptism? How should Sola Scriptura be defined and understood? They way the historic, traditional reformed Protestants understand it or the more extreme Solo Scriptura of the fundamentalists? How should we understand the nature of the Lord's Supper? A symbol, a spiritual presence, or a true presence as Lutherans understand it? Does is mean is, or does it mean "represents?"

Telling me "Well, you know, like, the Holy Spirit teaches you, so, like, just follow His teaching. All true believers are taught by the Spirit" is no answer---because it provides no answer to the questions above. It is a statement as meaningless and vacuous as "Well, like, you know, like, whoever preaches the Truth has the Gospel."

So don't tell me about straw mans. I am not caricaturizing any argument here. I am asking questions that Protestants either cannot or will not answer.
You see, it is all fine and dandy to make a nice pious statement like "Well, you know, like, whoever preaches the Truth has the Gospel." That solves nothing and it settles nothing. It is a meaningless statement.
Well of course you'd mock what you don't know. The gospel is hidden from catholics thats why you post the way you do. Or the other one that when asked about the gospel replies; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Or, there are 4 gospels. That tells every true born again believer that person has no clue. So why mock anyone as being pious with comments like 'whoever preaches the truth has the gospel?' Which a distortion of my actual comment which is;

"The gospel is the truth. Whoever preaches it has the truth." Some here aren't terribly interested in accuracy.

The Protestants on this site seem either unable or unwilling to tell me WHICH Gospel is the TRUE Gospel. Is it the Gospel as Lutherans Preach it? If so, which of the Lutheran sects? Is it the Gospel as Presbyterians understand it? If so, which of the Presbyterian sects? How about the Baptists? If so, which of the Baptists sects? Is it the Gospel as Mennonites understand it?

Heres another huge red flag waving wildly in the wind telling us you don't know the gospel. THE gospel is biblical, not Lutheran or baptist or or or. Thought you would have known that, well......

Is Double Predestination part of the Gospel? How about infant Baptism? How should Sola Scriptura be defined and understood? They way the historic, traditional reformed Protestants understand it or the more extreme Solo Scriptura of the fundamentalists? How should we understand the nature of the Lord's Supper? A symbol, a spiritual presence, or a true presence as Lutherans understand it? Does is mean is, or does it mean "represents?"

And here is where you introduce a bunch of nonsense not even brought up in the original post i responded to. Here it is for a quick refresher.

Maxtar said:

Yeah, who does one believe? Every little sect claims they have "the truth", claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them and only they have Him.

It is a statement as meaningless and vacuous as "Well, like, you know, like, whoever preaches the Truth has the Gospel."

Maybe you should like open your bible like and read it like cuz those verses come like right out of the bible like. Calling

Gods gospel meaningless and vacuous is dangerous ground to be standing on. Maybe you should submit to the gospel instead of always mocking it.

So don't tell me about straw mans. I am not caricaturizing any argument here. I am asking questions that Protestants either cannot or will not answer.

It is a straw man for the very reason i listed. And its been answered. Your confusion is over the nature of the gospel itself.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Well of course you'd mock what you don't know. The gospel is hidden from Catholics that's why you post the way you do. Or the other one that when asked about the gospel replies; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Or, there are 4 gospels. That tells every true born again believer that person has no clue. So why mock anyone as being pious with comments like 'whoever preaches the truth has the gospel?' Which a distortion of my actual comment which is;

"The gospel is the truth. Whoever preaches it has the truth." Some here aren't terribly interested in accuracy.

Because the statement is meaningless when there are hundreds of competing sects, all preaching mutually exclusive doctrines.

How can I know what the Gospel IS when the Protestants themselves don't even know what it is?
Here is another huge red flag waving wildly in the wind telling us you don't know the gospel. THE gospel is biblical, not Lutheran or Baptist or or or. Thought you would have known that, well......

Yeah, actually it IS, because there are Lutherans and Baptists, etc. If the Gospel wasn't Lutheran, Baptist, etc, there would not be Lutherans Baptists, etc, there would just be Christians.
And here is where you introduce a bunch of nonsense not even brought up in the original post i responded to. Here it is for a quick refresher.

Yeah, you dismiss that as unimportant nonsense. It is actually quite important. These questions are about the Gospel.
Maybe you should like open your bible like and read it like cuz those verses come like right out of the bible like. Calling Gods gospel meaningless and vacuous is dangerous ground to be standing on. Maybe you should submit to the gospel instead of always mocking it.

I am not calling God's Gospel meaningless, I am calling YOUR STATEMENT meaningless. Learn the difference!
It is a straw man for the very reason i listed. And its been answered. Your confusion is over the nature of the gospel itself.

So you call your post an answer do you? That is an answer? That is what passes for an answer in your world?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Nonsense. I certainly can call myself a christian (which i am) and at the same time deny being a prot or catholic or orthodox. In the first century a christian is all you would call yourself.

Yeah, no kidding. The reformation would not happen for another 1500 years! Of course the Church was united! It wasn't until the reformation that you had people running around claiming to be part of specific sects. And the reason for that was the sects all preach a different Gospel.
There was no roman catholic church or eastern orthodox. You may have called yourself one of 'the way' but that's still a nickname as it were for being a follower of Jesus.

The Church was Catholic. Saying the Church wasn't "Roman Catholic" doesn't say much. "Roman Catholics" belong to the "Roman Rite." Not every Catholic who is in union with the Bishop of Rome is a Roman Catholic. "Roman" refers to the Latin west.

In the Apostolic Church, Christians were in union with the apostles who were the first bishops, and with Peter who was the first pope. Thus, the Church was Catholic.
 

mica

Well-known member
Yes; disunity and respectful disagreement where unity and agreement is not required.

Again, you misunderstand the Catholic claim. We do not claim an infallible churches takes away disagreement and disunity; we claim it takes away JUSTIFICATION for disagreement and disunity---when the Church has clearly spoken definitively on an issue of dispute.
then catholics have no justification for their own disagreement and disunity with what the RCC teaches.
but, they still disagree and are disunited on what the RCC says / teaches.

The Church moves from uncertainly about things to certainty. Once the Church is certain, she is certain. Once the Church reaches certainty on some point of dispute, the issue is closed. Thus, for example, the Church was uncertain about the Immaculate Conception. In 1854, the Church moved from uncertainty to certainty and the pope defined the doctrine. Now the case is closed. Dissent on this issue is no longer permitted.
so for all of those previous yrs that you claim the RCC existed it was uncertain about the IC. Then suddenly it was certain. Why was it uncertain for all of those prev yrs?

why did it suddenly claim to be certain? Did God add something into scripture? have verses been added to the catholic bibles? How did catholics even live without the certainty of it?

was that before or after the pope came to be infallible?

If the RCC was previously uncertain that is because it was not found within scripture and the RCC decided that it didn't care that it wasn't.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Because the statement is meaningless when there are hundreds of competing sects, all preaching mutually exclusive doctrines.

What a cop out, it says what we do know and that is you cannot answer the question. It is the I know I do not know the answer, so I will try and divert. Fail.

It also means you do not know Peter at all.

1 Peter 3:15


But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

How can I know what the Gospel IS when the Protestants themselves don't even know what it is?
So many verses about the gospel.

Rom1:16


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.

Rom 10:9+

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

Of course some RCs have problems with it because it is in scripture, no need to follow any man made doctrine. It is simple and clear to those who bother to read His word.

Just another way of avoiding the question. Another fail.


Yeah, actually it IS, because there are Lutherans and Baptists, etc. If the Gospel wasn't Lutheran, Baptist, etc, there would not be Lutherans Baptists, etc, there would just be Christians.

Oh well it is not RCC because they do not know what the gospel is.

Yeah, you dismiss that as unimportant nonsense. It is actually quite important. These questions are about the Gospel.


I am not calling God's Gospel meaningless, I am calling YOUR STATEMENT meaningless. Learn the difference!

You are calling it meaningless because you don't state clearly what it is and therefore ignoring one of the commandments.

Matt 28

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
So you call your post an answer do you? That is an answer? That is what passes for an answer in your world?
Oh the poster did answer. You are the one who does not answer and then makes excuses for not answering.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

John 3:16


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

Yeah--and Catholics believe as much, so this doesn't help you since you think we reject the Gospel.
 
Top