Vatican defrocks US Cardinal for sexual misconduct....

Biblical evidence can be provided for points (a), (b), (e) and (f), if you'd like to go through each one.
Your saying there is biblical evidence means absolutely nothing.
They are not false dogmas from a Catholic perspective.
You see that is not true. I mean you use Catholic to imply it is the NT church and that is not true. It is the Roman Catholic church and it is not a NT church. It is easy to see that they are false dogmas, especially the pv which comes from a fraudulent source and is not biblical.

This thread has done a major meander from the op.
 
It's a heresy from a Protestant perspective but (a) since I'm not a Protestant, I can hardly be a Protestant heretic (anymore than a Muslim could be a Buddhist heretic!) and (b) as a Catholic, I couldn't really care less what Protestants think is heretical.
From the same point of view I couldn't be a heretic either because I'm a Protestant. My definition of heretic is not necessarily somebody who just agrees with the Roman Catholic Church. Heresy is defined by how wrong it is, not by the group that actually promulgates the Heresy.

So the doctrine of the immaculate conception is a heresy, but it's not a heresy because I'm a Protestant. It's a heresy because it's wrong. A heresy is not something that you just choose to believe is a heresy or not. That is not a correct definition of heresy. That is really Wishful Thinking. The truth cannot be turned into a lie and a lie cannot be turned into truth. That is the reality, because truth is not relative, and nothing is true simply because you decide to believe in it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top