Why Catholics Honor Mary The Mother of God

[Zguy28]

Instead of reforming, they revolted and did away with a deposit of faith that now leaves them devoid of the fullness of truth. You miss a heck of a lot, Psy.

The last I checked Martin Luther's intention was to reform the church from detestable practices such as selling indulgences, or preaching salvation by works.

Bavarian (and many other Romish churchmen) call them heretics for seeking reform. Is it any wonder the Reformation happened when the religious powers that be were so corrupt?

Ex tenabris lux

 

[Radiant1]

Well, you should care ………………..

This sounds like doublespeak. You claim my beliefs don’t ‘contain the fullness of truth’ while also saying ‘Nobody is saying yours is false’. Perhaps you should clarify what it means “doesn't contain the fullness of truth”. And Bav IS saying my beliefs are false.

Not double speak. Stop trying to make it into something it's not. Ok, let's say truth is a whole pie. You have half a pie. It's still pie, just not the whole pie. Get it?

Bavarian is a pre-VII Traditionalist Catholic. We live in a post V-II world. If you don't know what that means exactly, ask me. This is a good example of those "factions" you find regarding The Way in the book of Acts.

The belief that the CC is THE first Christian church has been conveyed to people for a long time. The old “tell someone something often enough and long enough and they’ll begin to believe it, regardless of the facts” is the paradigm. I’ve given you verses from the source that we use (the bible) that shows what the first church was, over 100 years before the CC. Not sure what else there is to say about it. :shrug:

No, over 100 years before The Way was called Catholic in a written document that we know of. Was it the first document to use the term? Most likely not, for the term was used as if everyone understood it; however, it's the first we have. And barring that, the Catholic Church can trace it's history to Christ through the succession of popes alone not to mention other lines. No other church in existence to this day can do that. That should be enough for any intellectually honest person to accept, unless you have a bias.

If you cannot accept that, then you have to show me (and others of a logical bent) that The Way proceeded in a different manner in the form of a different organized body. The only other ones in existence were heretical, and I don't think you'd lay The Way at their feet. (Maybe you would, I don't know).

I’m not missing anything except what this ‘fullness of truth’ you claim to be blessed with that I’m not. Do we not have the same Christ? Is the bible not our same source for understanding this Christ? I suspect the only thing I’m missing is the fact that I refuse to recognize what you do, and somehow that deprives me of some deeper truth. I assure you, this is not possible.

You use the bible as your ONLY source, and therein lay the problem. Even the bible says there is more than what was written. And, actually, you do deprive yourself of a deeper truth. Don't forget, I was raised Protestant. Frankly, I found it dry then, and I still do today. Catholicism affords me those deeper mysteries of Christ that I was previously missing.

I thought I said that The Way dispersed to many factions or denominations as mentioned in Acts. But there is no biblical evidence that The Way was renamed or became the CC.

Acts doesn't specify "many denominations". You make a bit of a jump when you assume factions make for denominations, Psy; they don't. You don't need just biblical facts to know that The Way is the Catholic Church. You need historical evidence; however, since you refuse to acknowledge that, you're missing a great deal.

I’ve given you the exact verses and words that show the name of the first church of Christ. Now, please point to the verse/s that has the term “Catholic” in it and I will concede.

There is no term "Catholic" in the bible, but there doesn't need to be. (And again for the umpteenth time, there's no term Trinity either). The term "Catholic" was first used in a written document that we know of by Irenaeus who was a disciple (student) of Polycarp who was a disciple (student) of John (Jesus' most beloved disciple). Your refusal to acknowledge apostolic succession (which is biblical, btw) leads you to miss a great deal you see.

I still don’t know what “DURP DURP” means, but don’t bother. I really don’t care. I intend to keep this respectable. If it makes you feel better, continue with your meaningless jabs and attempts to belittle me. It’s a poor substitute for the facts that you lack.

:sigh: I wasn't belittling you. I was belittling IS for stating a known deception. Read carefully, I was responding to him, not you.

I never get tired. It’s interesting and keeps me thinking. I am capable of a lot of things. If you’ve decided I’m incapable of grasping your points because I disagree with them, then you don’t understand the meaning of debate. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.

I do get tired, tired of repeating myself over and over and over again. And yes, I have decided that you're just incapable of grasping what I'm telling you. You truly don't understand what I'm saying to you or I wouldn't have to repeat myself. It's not my intention to offend you, it's my intention to be done with what amounts to a fruitless conversation. There is no point to debate if you're just going to talk past each other.

 

[Radiant1]

The last I checked Martin Luther's intention was to reform the church from detestable practices such as selling indulgences, or preaching salvation by works.

Bavarian (and many other Romish churchmen) call them heretics for seeking reform. Is it any wonder the Reformation happened when the religious powers that be were so corrupt?

Ex tenabris lux

Yes, about as detestable as those bible-thumpin' televangelists.

Luther had every right to reform, but what he did was revolt. Reformers from within are called saints. Reformers who reject the faith, are called heretics. :shrug:

"Romish"? Really Zguy? Why do I imagine you dressed in some Puritan clothing wearing a white wig with your nose in the air?

 

[PsyOps]

Not double speak. Stop trying to make it into something it's not. Ok, let's say truth is a whole pie. You have half a pie. It's still pie, just not the whole pie. Get it?

Bavarian is a pre-VII Traditionalist Catholic. We live in a post V-II world. If you don't know what that means exactly, ask me. This is a good example of those "factions" you find regarding The Way in the book of Acts.

Well, you’ve probably heard the old saying “A half truth is a whole lie”. And, even within the CC there are factions. That’s not the point. The CC is not THE ORIGINAL Christian church.

No, over 100 years before The Way was called Catholic in a written document that we know of. Was it the first document to use the term? Most likely not, for the term was used as if everyone understood it; however, it's the first we have. And barring that, the Catholic Church can trace it's history to Christ through the succession of popes alone not to mention other lines. No other church in existence to this day can do that. That should be enough for any intellectually honest person to accept, unless you have a bias.

So let me understand… You are saying that, circa 100AD, the only Christian church that existed was the Catholic Church, anywhere in the world? You’re saying that St. Peter called it the Catholic Church and that was the only church of the day? You’re saying, nowhere in the world in the year 45AD did any other church exist but the Catholic Church? You’re saying the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation are Catholic Churches?

If you cannot accept that, then you have to show me (and others of a logical bent) that The Way proceeded in a different manner in the form of a different organized body. The only other ones in existence were heretical, and I don't think you'd lay The Way at their feet. (Maybe you would, I don't know).

I’m saying that the CC is just one of many churches that grew up out of the Christian movement. But you stated your position perfectly that any other church but the Catholic Church heretical. And that is the core belief of the CC today. Although you have tried to convince to the contrary I have had this discussion with enough Catholic to know exactly where they stand on their existence vs. other churches/denominations.

You use the bible as your ONLY source, and therein lay the problem. Even the bible says there is more than what was written. And, actually, you do deprive yourself of a deeper truth. Don't forget, I was raised Protestant. Frankly, I found it dry then, and I still do today. Catholicism affords me those deeper mysteries of Christ that I was previously missing.

I use the bible as the original source. All other sources are subsequent and a result of the bible. There is no deeper truth than knowing who my savior is and my personal relationship with that savior. I don’t need a church to define the ‘deeper truth’ who my God and savior is.

Acts doesn't specify "many denominations". You make a bit of a jump when you assume factions make for denominations, Psy; they don't. You don't need just biblical facts to know that The Way is the Catholic Church. You need historical evidence; however, since you refuse to acknowledge that, you're missing a great deal.

Acts also doesn't specify the CC. Okay, call it what you want. I’ll go with factions. The CC was just one faction that stemmed from the original church ‘The Way’. But let me ask you this, even if it were true that the CC is the original church; so what? What does this mean? What does it prove? Does this mean, by default, yours is the only one true church?

I do get tired, tired of repeating myself over and over and over again. And yes, I have decided that you're just incapable of grasping what I'm telling you. You truly don't understand what I'm saying to you or I wouldn't have to repeat myself. It's not my intention to offend you, it's my intention to be done with what amounts to a fruitless conversation. There is no point to debate if you're just going to talk past each other.

Well, by all means bow out. I’m not forcing anything here. It’s a simple discussion for me. It’s too bad you can’t differentiate between ‘incapable’ and ‘unwilling’. I grasp everything you’re telling me. I’ve heard it hundreds of times in my life. Don’t think I haven’t done my research over the years. The only reason you’re repeating yourself is because you somehow feel you’re going to convince me. I say don't give up. Convince me. Give me that compelling evidence. To this point you have not. Don’t be frustrated by this. We have our various denominations/factions today for a reason. And that reason is not to use each as a wedge to contend others are false. In my mind we are all brother and sisters and should treat each other as such.

 

[PsyOps]

Luther had every right to reform, but what he did was revolt.

Revolt against what, in your mind?

 

[Zguy28]

Yes, about as detestable as those bible-thumpin' televangelists.

Indeed. No argument here. I find it just as detestable when people try to control the Spirit by setting time limits on sermons, which is what TV producers have to do. What if the Holy Spirit takes hold of the preacher?

Luther had every right to reform, but what he did was revolt. Reformers from within are called saints. Reformers who reject the faith, are called heretics. :shrug:

I think if you are intellectually honest, you will admit that Luther's "revolt" was not something planned ahead of time but rather was the result of failed attempts at reform with regard to sales of indulgences, and the fleecing of the poor to build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome by the Pope.

Martin Luther was a scholarly man and sent his theses to his bishop in an ordinary manner.

"Romish"? Really Zguy? Why do I imagine you dressed in some Puritan clothing wearing a white wig with your nose in the air?

I thought it would amuse you.

(I do read a lot of Puritans though)

 

[Bavarian]

A history of the other ecclesiastical communities I found at TLDM.org

How Old Is Your Church?



If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

 

[PsyOps]

A history of the other ecclesiastical communities I found at TLDM.org

How Old Is Your Church?

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

A Catholic website.

 

[Radiant1]

Well, you’ve probably heard the old saying “A half truth is a whole lie”. And, even within the CC there are factions. That’s not the point. The CC is not THE ORIGINAL Christian church.

Do you believe that old saying?

As I said, there are factions within Catholicism (see below). All believe the same doctrines, however.

The Catholic Church is the original church founded by Christ. I've listed the Popes (successors to Peter) elsewhere, and I've already mentioned the Church Fathers who were also successors to the first apostles. I'm not inclined to dig it all up again, feel free to use the forum search function.

So let me understand… You are saying that, circa 100AD, the only Christian church that existed was the Catholic Church, anywhere in the world?

I'm saying that at that point the Catholic Church was the only non-heretical one (as in the proper Christology that you, I assume, also believe. In other words NOT the Circumcisers or Gnostics).

You’re saying that St. Peter called it the Catholic Church and that was the only church of the day?

I'm saying that "The Way" was the only non-heretical church, and that church by the last part of the 1st c was also called "Catholic". Kind of like how Nazarenes were later called Christians.

You’re saying, nowhere in the world in the year 45AD did any other church exist but the Catholic Church?

See above (Circumcisers, Gnostics).

You’re saying the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation are Catholic Churches?

Yes. Mind you, we aren't talking brick and mortar churches, but communities of Christians. Make note that these churches did not rely on the bible alone and had what are now called bishops.

I’m saying that the CC is just one of many churches that grew up out of the Christian movement. But you stated your position perfectly that any other church but the Catholic Church heretical. And that is the core belief of the CC today. Although you have tried to convince to the contrary I have had this discussion with enough Catholic to know exactly where they stand on their existence vs. other churches/denominations.

You are saying that because you need to believe it in order to justify your current stance. You have yet to show me any evidence that there was something other than The Way/Catholicism. You've only told me what you think with nothing to back it up historically. I disagree with your interpretation of the seven churches in the book of Revelations, so what else can you do to convince me? I've presented to you my evidence, now give me yours.

I use the bible as the original source. All other sources are subsequent and a result of the bible. There is no deeper truth than knowing who my savior is and my personal relationship with that savior. I don’t need a church to define the ‘deeper truth’ who my God and savior is.

Actually, you do. If it were not for the apostles and Sacred Tradition as held by the Catholic Church then there would have been no gospel preached and NO BIBLE (which doesn't tell you to rely on it alone).

Acts also doesn't specify the CC. Okay, call it what you want. I’ll go with factions. The CC was just one faction that stemmed from the original church ‘The Way’. But let me ask you this, even if it were true that the CC is the original church; so what? What does this mean? What does it prove? Does this mean, by default, yours is the only one true church?

See, this is where I get tired of repeating myself. Again, you assume faction and denomination are one in the same. They are not. You're reading into the text (eisegesis as opposed to exegesis). There are factions within Catholicism itself -- pre-VII and post V-II, various theological "schools" of thought, etc -- but we all believe in the same doctrines. The same holds true of the Catholic Church today, as it did in the 1st century.

I will say it AGAIN...what you have to do to prove your stance is give me some extant evidence (aside from your personal interpretation of Revelations) that another Church existed in history during this time that was outside of and apart from what we now call the Catholic Church. I tried to do this myself before my conversion to Catholicism and couldn't do it. I've also been over this very thing countless times before with Protestants over the last 20 some odd years, and they couldn't do it. I hightly suspect you can't do it either, but here's your shot.

In fact, what do we see happening with those seven churches? They were having problems of one sort or another, the Holy Spirit directed the apostle John to write to them and correct them. Where are your apostles to do that today? I know where mine are.

Well, by all means bow out. I’m not forcing anything here. It’s a simple discussion for me. It’s too bad you can’t differentiate between ‘incapable’ and ‘unwilling’. I grasp everything you’re telling me. I’ve heard it hundreds of times in my life. Don’t think I haven’t done my research over the years. The only reason you’re repeating yourself is because you somehow feel you’re going to convince me. I say don't give up. Convince me. Give me that compelling evidence. To this point you have not. Don’t be frustrated by this. We have our various denominations/factions today for a reason. And that reason is not to use each as a wedge to contend others are false. In my mind we are all brother and sisters and should treat each other as such.

Ok, you're either incapable of understanding or unwilling to understand. Either or works for me. :shrug: If you grasped what I was telling you then you wouldn't have asked the questions you did.

If you haven't noticed, I didn't say your faith is false (you are a Christian after all). What I said is that you do not have the fullness of truth. If you don't want to use each other as a wedge, then stop doing it by insisting I'm saying something that I'm not.

 

[Zguy28]

Do you believe that old saying?

As I said, there are factions within Catholicism (see below). All believe the same doctrines, however.

The Catholic Church is the original church founded by Christ. I've listed the Popes (successors to Peter) elsewhere, and I've already mentioned the Church Fathers who were also successors to the first apostles. I'm not inclined to dig it all up again, feel free to use the forum search function.



I'm saying that at that point the Catholic Church was the only non-heretical one (as in the proper Christology that you, I assume, also believe. In other words NOT the Circumcisers or Gnostics).



I'm saying that "The Way" was the only non-heretical church, and that church by the last part of the 1st c was also called "Catholic". Kind of like how Nazarenes were later called Christians.



See above (Circumcisers, Gnostics).



Yes. Mind you, we aren't talking brick and mortar churches, but communities of Christians. Make note that these churches did not rely on the bible alone and had what are now called bishops.



You are saying that because you need to believe it in order to justify your current stance. You have yet to show me any evidence that there was something other than The Way/Catholicism. You've only told me what you think with nothing to back it up historically. I disagree with your interpretation of the seven churches in the book of Revelations, so what else can you do to convince me? I've presented to you my evidence, now give me yours.



Actually, you do. If it were not for the apostles and Sacred Tradition as held by the Catholic Church then there would have been no gospel preached and NO BIBLE (which doesn't tell you to rely on it alone).



See, this is where I get tired of repeating myself. Again, you assume faction and denomination are one in the same. They are not. You're reading into the text (eisegesis as opposed to exegesis). There are factions within Catholicism itself -- pre-VII and post V-II, various theological "schools" of thought, etc -- but we all believe in the same doctrines. The same holds true of the Catholic Church today, as it did in the 1st century.

I will say it AGAIN...what you have to do to prove your stance is give me some extant evidence (aside from your personal interpretation of Revelations) that another Church existed in history during this time that was outside of and apart from what we now call the Catholic Church. I tried to do this myself before my conversion to Catholicism and couldn't do it. I've also been over this very thing countless times before with Protestants over the last 20 some odd years, and they couldn't do it. I hightly suspect you can't do it either, but here's your shot.

In fact, what do we see happening with those seven churches? They were having problems of one sort or another, the Holy Spirit directed the apostle John to write to them and correct them. Where are your apostles to do that today? I know where mine are.



Ok, you're either incapable of understanding or unwilling to understand. Either or works for me. :shrug: If you grasped what I was telling you then you wouldn't have asked the questions you did.

If you haven't noticed, I didn't say your faith is false (you are a Christian after all). What I said is that you do not have the fullness of truth. If you don't want to use each other as a wedge, then stop doing it by insisting I'm saying something that I'm not.

I believe in the catholic church also. It was/is the church of Jesus Christ. I don't equate it with Roman Catholicism though.

Big difference. Huge.

 

[libby]

I wish I could step in here and help out, R1, although you're so capable my efforts would be a joke. I've got family in town and am only able to give a quick read, but I'm very anxious to see if history brings anyone around to the acknowledgement that "one Church", which is now called "the Catholic Church", was all that there was in the 1st century. That's where ECF's should come in, and our bretheren can get the proof that the early Christians believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity, etc.
To all our Protestant friends, it is all there. Christendom was one in belief, practice and doctrine. Heretical ideas were corrected at councils, etc.
Okay, company calling.

 

[Radiant1]

A Catholic website.

Well yeah, but can you give us something different? Historical evidence, Psy, historical evidence.

I believe in the catholic church also. It was/is the church of Jesus Christ. I don't equate it with Roman Catholicism though.

Big difference. Huge.

Why do you think the Catholic Church is called "Catholic"?

As stated previously, there is no "Roman Catholic", that's never been an official title of the Catholic Church. There is a Roman rite as well as a Marion rite, Ruthenian rite, etc, however. The term "Roman Catholic" is a misnomer, developed by Protestants no doubt.

 

[PsyOps]

See, this is where I get tired of repeating myself.

Sorry, but this just getting too long so...

I'm going to ask you to repeat your answer to this again... Are you saying that if you don't belong to the CC you aren't saved?

If not, then I fail to see your point in any of your claims. If I am saved just as much as you are, what is the purpose of claiming yours is the original church?

If so, I am only going to say you are completely wrong biblcally.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16

It doesn't say if you are Catholic

It doesn't say if you belong to this church or that.

It simply says if you believe in Jesus, that he is your savior (and be baptized, Mark 16;16) you will be saved.

And I will also say that just because you attach the word Catholic to your name and go to mass every Sunday, and truly don't accept Christ as your savior, doesn't save you. No church, no name has one bit of meaning without the absolute single condition of believing in Jesus.

 

[Starman3000m]

...
It doesn't say if you are Catholic

It doesn't say if you belong to this church or that.

It simply says if you believe in Jesus, that he is your savior (and be baptized, Mark 16;16) you will be saved.

And I will also say that just because you attach the word Catholic to your name and go to mass every Sunday, and truly don't accept Christ as your savior, doesn't save you. No church, no name has one bit of meaning without the absolute single condition of believing in Jesus.

However, (as you know) the caveat is that since there are various religious interpretations and definitions of who "Jesus" is, one must place faith in the True and Real "New Testament Jesus". This has been the message and warning ever since the time that faith in Christ was first preached to this world:

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(2 Corinthians 11:4)

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Matthew 24:24)

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. (Mark 13:22)


For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

 

[Radiant1]

Sorry, but this just getting too long so...

I'm going to ask you to repeat your answer to this again... Are you saying that if you don't belong to the CC you aren't saved?

If not, then I fail to see your point in any of your claims. If I am saved just as much as you are, what is the purpose of claiming yours is the original church?

If so, I am only going to say you are completely wrong biblcally.



It doesn't say if you are Catholic

It doesn't say if you belong to this church or that.

It simply says if you believe in Jesus, that he is your savior (and be baptized, Mark 16;16) you will be saved.

And I will also say that just because you attach the word Catholic to your name and go to mass every Sunday, and truly don't accept Christ as your savior, doesn't save you. No church, no name has one bit of meaning without the absolute single condition of believing in Jesus.

Good grief man. You stated you liked the discussion and asked me questions only to turn around and dismiss the logic.

Look, it's this simple. You don't have the fullness of truth. Do you need that to be saved? If you believe in Christ as your Lord and Savior and actually did something about it (baptism), then who am I to say you aren't saved?

Not once have you heard me say you aren't saved or will be going to hell.

What was the point in my entering this discussion? To prove to you that

1) Catholics are Christians, we were the first Christians.
2) Christ did establish a church because He didn't want us to rely on the bible alone.
3) Fullness of truth is important, for without it you miss out on a lot of what is the mystery of Christ.
4) Without the Catholic Church you would have never heard of Jesus Christ to begin with.

Btw, Psy, did you know that Catholicism accepts the baptism of other denominations as long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

 

[Bavarian]

Well yeah, but can you give us something different? Historical evidence, Psy, historical evidence.



Why do you think the Catholic Church is called "Catholic"? As stated previously, there is no "Roman Catholic", that's never been an official title of the Catholic Church. There is a Roman rite as well as a Marion rite, Ruthenium rite, etc, however. The term "Roman Catholic" is a misnomer, developed by Protestants no doubt.

Catholic is Universal! The adjective Roman is used by non-Catholics in most cases as a way to lessen The Catholic Church.

Are you aware, speaking to all of you here, that the Anglicans are returning to the Catholic Church under a separate Rite granted to them by Pope Benedict? They are the Anglicans who oppose Women Priests, homosexual Bishops and the like. Saw recently that there is a denomination called "Anglican Lutherans" who are also going back to Rome. Many Rites, One Church, One Pope.

 

[Radiant1]

Catholic is Universal! The adjective Roman is used by non-Catholics in most cases as a way to lessen The Catholic Church.

Are you aware, speaking to all of you here, that the Anglicans are returning to the Catholic Church under a separate Rite granted to them by Pope Benedict? They are the Anglicans who oppose Women Priests, homosexual Bishops and the like. Saw recently that there is a denomination called "Anglican Lutherans" who are also going back to Rome. Many Rites, One Church, One Pope.

For anyone interested in more info: Anglo-Catholicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Starman3000m]

Catholic is Universal! The adjective Roman is used by non-Catholics in most cases as a way to lessen The Catholic Church.
..

Breaking News Bavarian! Non-Catholics do not use the word Roman in an attempt to "lessen" the Catholic Church at all as you think. Actually, The use of the word "Roman" is perpetuated and used by many Catholic churches in their own description. Here are just a few examples:

Exaltation of the Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church
Exaltation of the Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church - Home

Holy Roman Catholic Church Vs Vatican Council II
Holy Roman Catholic Church Vs Vatican Council II

St John the Baptist – Holy Angels Roman Catholic Parish
St. John - Holy Angels Parish, Roman Catholic Church. Newark Delaware

Saint Mary Roman Catholic Church
St. Mary Roman Catholic Church at 210 West Main Street, Manchester, MI 48158 US - The Funeral Rites of the Roman Catholic Church

 

[PsyOps]

Well yeah, but can you give us something different? Historical evidence, Psy, historical evidence.

I gave it to you and you rejected it. It's in the bible.

 

[Radiant1]

I gave it to you and you rejected it. It's in the bible.

For someone who claimed to like debate that sure is a cop out.

You gave me what you thought was the seven churches but didn't bother to give me any evidence as to why you think it. Am I supposed to just take your word for it with no evidence?

It would be more honest of you to acknowledge the fact that the Catholic Church was indeed the first church and established by Christ. To admit as much still makes no difference to you, does it? You still think you're saved, right? So what's the harm in acknowleding the truth? Do you think you'll be struck by lightening if you give some minor creedence to the Catholic Church or something?