A question that I addressed to Catholic apologists

[Not of the World]

12 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

"Wishing you a happy whatever doesn't offend you."

Yea, no kidding.  Grown men getting triggered over a historical question.  Amazing.  

[Not of the World]

15 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

It's kinda like an amusing thing a brother sent me that is apropos for this season: "Wishing you a happy whatever doesn't offend you."

But seriously, we all have warts, every group, every denomination and the RCC.  Just look at the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation - 5 of the 7 had warts.  But they all were churches the Lord was addressing, which means they all had believers in them.  So do we go after the warts to tear them down, or do our best to build up another believer?

My opinion is, attacking a system likely won't save many, but turning them to Christ the Light will . . . He's the one qualified to point out warts.

I was a Catholic and it was questions like the one that I asked, which many here believe should not be posed, that opened my eyes to the reality that the RCC is NOT the true church of Christ.  

The most loving thing we can for another is to share the truth with them.  But there are folks here saying that we shouldn't share the truth with them because they might feel offended.  

Incredible.  

[other one]

7 minutes ago, Not of the World said:

I invited feedback on what I posited.  You gleaned some surreptitious intention and then told me that I was being offensive.  

I have an idea.  Put me on "ignore" and then you won't have to risk being "offended" by my questions.  Fair enough?  

I can't do that.

[JohnD]

2 hours ago, Not of the World said:

If Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church and if the RCC is the TRUE church of God, then can it be said that churches created by other apostles were/are NOT of God?  

What are your thoughts?

I get the impression Not of the World is posing the question as if to Catholic Apologists from his Protestant belief perspective.

And I do not see why there was such offense taken by the question. I must be missing something.

 

[JohnD]

4 minutes ago, Not of the World said:

I was a Catholic and it was questions like the one that I asked, which many here believe should not be posed, that opened my eyes to the reality that the RCC is NOT the true church of Christ.  

The most loving thing we can for another is to share the truth with them.  But there are folks here saying that we shouldn't share the truth with them because they might feel offended.  

Incredible.  

Don't believe appearances.

Given more clarification, I believe they will see how you meant it.

It's just a matter of getting past the misunderstandings / false alarms that went of. 

 

[Not of the World]

5 minutes ago, other one said:

I can't do that.

Why not?  

[JohnD]

As far as the Op is concerned, Not of the World obviously does not believe the Apostle Peter was the founder of the Church / First Pope as Roman Catholic tradition states. Furthermore there is no factual / archaeological evidence to support Peter ever being in Rome. Google and you can only find:

"It may be said that by the end of the 1st century there existed a tradition that Peter had lived in Rome. Further early evidence for the tradition is found in the Letter to the Romans by St. Ignatius, the early 2nd-century bishop of Antioch"

Remember Jesus' warnings about traditions of men (Mark 7:7 / Mark 7:13).

And in fact the very passage that the Catholics interpret to say Peter is the rock Jesus built his Church upon (Matthew 16) Jesus juxtaposed the things of man (like traditions, philosophy, doctrines of men) against the things of God twice. Attributing the things of man to the devil (calling Peter Satan in verse 23).

[JohnD]

2 minutes ago, Not of the World said:

Why not?  

Simmer down, Dude.

IMHO there has been some over reaction here.

Let's get back to your opening point trying to reason with Catholic Apologists about their doctrine conflicting with truth. Specifically the formation of the churches by the other Apostles negating the belief that only Peter founded the "true Church." And it was a good arguement by the way.

[Alive]

I proposed a set of ifs in the OP could be problamatic to a good answer.

First of all,Peter did not establish the Church in Rome. That occurred when thousands of new converts during and shortly after Pentecost during and after the Joel…”this is that” was fullfilled…..went back home following their sojourn to Jerusalem. Such souls included both Jews and gentile seekers. Christ established the Church in Rome. 
This makes the second regsrding a myth of apostolic succession a mute point. There is no such thing. Much of what the group of true apostles taught over years in intimate meetings are not available to us. We have the scriptural record and the Holy Spirit annointing members to teach us exactly what the Great Shepherd chooses any to understand and that for His purpose and in His timing.

We trust Him in the assembly as Head, rather than any man.

[other one]

i have been informed for years that we are not allowed to put down the Catholic Church.   over the years the OP has usually quickly progressed to that.

If I over reacted I have historical president to feel that way.   But I have as much of a privilege to express my thoughts also.   Which I did.

Edited December 19, 2022 by other one
Edited to add that if you don't like my ideas, put me on Ignore.