[Elsie]

Now if you have removed it, then I retract my view that you are acting in a biased manner.

I fully expected to have my remark deleted at the time I posted them.

This IS; of course; the Religion forum; where we are expected to behave in a bit higher level than our normal human nature is expressed.

At least I knew they'd go away.

[CTrent1564]

Elsie:

Well, I admired your passion and use of the term and actually got a good laugh on that particular term. The implicit use of the term cultist, that one did not sit as well.

But back to the question at hand which lead to the remark that was deleted, I did link the entire dogmatic statement from Vatican 1. Too many people look at MT 16:16-18 and try to make it say what they want it to say because of there disagreement with Rome and have actually never read the document. For example, there were numerous people here who actually posited that the entire papal infallibility doctrine rest on whether it was Peter and his Confession, Peter as a Rock, Peter himself, etc, etc. Incorrect, and there are 2 other important Petrine text that are also part of it, the Feed my Lambs from John 21 and strengthen your brethren from Luke 22.