WHY ARE OUR CATHOLIC LAITY SO ILLITERATE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH

Southern Orders ^ | May 31, 2013 | Fr. Allan J. McDonald

[verga]

Why, because you say so???

Can a baby sin? Can a menatlly retarded person sin?, You just admitted that Jesus didn't sin, so all, doesn't mean ALL!

[BlueDragon]

I never hear anyone say that he is humbly grateful to be Catholic.

I've seen it said a few times over the years, and it be acceptable at face value due to that person's overall demeanor, which itself carried testimony towards the affirmative.

At risk of getting personal, you do come across as being genuinely one of those.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “...you have to conclude that Jesus too sinned” <<

.
Then the Lamb of Yehova was not without blemish, and we have no hope of salvation.

Not so surprising that a ‘catholic’ would have such an ignorant belief though.

[A.A. Cunningham]

For the first two centuries, no measurable number of Yeshua’s followers observed any of the practices of what you call “catholic.”

According to whom, you?

I doubt you're even remotely familiar with either the Apostolic or ante-Nicene Church. Polycarp? Ignatius? Clement? Hermas? Barnabus? Papias? Anyone? Anyone?

[Natural Law]

"Are you Catholic?"

The point missed by our anti-Catholic Freepers is that by insisting that there was a "universal" Church they are refuting the assertion that the early church was nothing more than a loose collection of informal "house churches".

Peace be with you

[editor-surveyor]

No credible historian missed it.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The pagan emperor Constantine founsded the “catholic” church.

That will come as news to Ignatius of Antioch, the Council of Elvira, ad infinitum ...

[boatbums]

If Catholics, all Catholics, simply studied Baltimore Catechism #1, we would have very knowledgeable Catholics.

I have this faint, but sure, memory of some FRoman Catholics mocking and belittling anyone who isn't a Catholic for using the Baltimore Catechism for citations used in discussions of Catholic beliefs. We were told that such a book was "only for children" and "beginners" and should not be relied upon for actual teachings of the Catholic Church. So. I wonder, is it now acceptable to use this catechism to know what Catholics "officially" believe?

[Natural Law]

"Not so surprising that a ‘catholic’ would have such an ignorant belief though."

OK, we'll go with your version. St. Paul was lying when he said "all" have sinned.

Peace be with you

[editor-surveyor]

You dishonor many early believers by attributing such heresy to them.

[editor-surveyor]

Games!

[A.A. Cunningham]

You’re trying to pass off your own personal interpretations as infallible, aren’t you?

[JCBreckenridge]

then perhaps you can name names, and cite exactly what you claimed were ‘Catholic’ beliefs.

[JCBreckenridge]

Sir, you haven’t realized. The Church only became Christian when Henry VIII wanted a divorce.

[editor-surveyor]

>> The point missed by our anti-Catholic Freepers is that by insisting that there was a “universal” Church they are refuting the assertion that the early church was nothing more than a loose collection of informal “house churches”. <<

.
Nonsense, that is exactly what the NT says. (or do you think that Yeshua’s half brother James was the first pope?)

[JCBreckenridge]

Then how does this thread apply to you since you are not Catholic?

[A.A. Cunningham]

I’m sure the on scene wet nurse will rectify that.