If We Protestants Truly Hated Catholics...

[bbyrd009]

LOL! On many things it would seem you and I are traveling along the same road. Hopefully it is always the highway of holiness...

"And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:
And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." Isaiah 35:7-10

ha, nice :)
of course someone will be wanting to Incorporate "Zion" now right
lol

 

[amadeus]

ha, nice :)
of course someone will be wanting to Incorporate "Zion" now right
lol

"For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread.
I will also clothe her priests with salvation: and her saints shall shout aloud for joy." Psalm 132:13-16

Our place of rest, our sabbath if you will: Zion

Give God the glory!

 

[epostle1]

Ok, so believers are sealed with air, Eph 1:13-14??

The Holy Spirit and His anointing comes from the Kingdom of Heaven, does it not?

All grace comes from heaven, but that is not the point. Eph. 1:13-14 refers to the Sacrament of Confirmation, which is administered by a bishop using holy oil. "Sacrament of Confirmation" is a developed term that MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The anointing is not some invisible action that is generated solely by the intellect.

"Kingdom of Heaven" has multiple applications, but generally it refers to the Body of Christ in BOTH heaven and earth. Does "...thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." look familiar? Jesus never severed the umbilical cord between the two. The exegesis used by BoL for Matt. 7:21 is correct because that verse applies to EARTH.

You have been unsuccessfully hounding BoL with Calvinoid errors for several months. You must enjoy being constantly refuted.

A kingdom implies a King. In terms of the earthly Davidic Kingdom, a King with no queen mother is unthinkable. But that is not our problem.

7 Scripture citations followed by a brief exegesis on the Sacrament of Confirmation

And about your laughing at me and calling me “Christian,” you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” ​

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, I:12 (A.D. 181) .

Theophilus is not inventing the Sacrament of Confirmation, he is elaborating on what had always been believed. How far removed you are from the Infant Church of 181 A.D. is entirely your choice.

​

 

[Phoneman777]

Shall I take that as a 'no you cant identify this community' or 'no you cant demonstrate that it is an apostolic community?

I'll make it so easy for you:

"God's church is easily identified throughout history as those Christians to whom the relentless persecutions of Satan's Vatican agents were directed."

 

[Phoneman777]

Can you provide documented proof for your moronic claim because Irenaeus, who lived in the 2nd Century would have a BIG problem with that remark. You see - he wrote a document called "Against Heresies", where he LISTS all of the popes from Peter to HIS day in the 2nd century.

About sixty years later, Tertullian wrote a document called "Di Pudicitia" in which he refers to the office of the Papacy.

I EAGERLY await your documented historical evidence . . .

BOL, the papacy - the union of Roman Catholic church and state - could not have possibly existed in the 2nd century, because the ENTHRONED STATE SUPREME LEADER ROMAN EMPEROR CAESARS WHO WERE WORSHIPED AS DEITY WOULD HAVE HAD JUST A TAD BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH BEING IN COMPETITION WITH THE BISHOP OF ROME TAKING THEIR PAGAN PREROGATIVES TO HIMSELF - LIKE NEXT LEVEL "SWIFT, CERTAIN DEATH" PROBLEM.

BTW, I took the liberty of borrowing Pius XII's Encyclical use of "Roman Catholic church" when referring to his Roman Catholic church - I figure if he can do it, so can I, or are you still making a fool of yourself by telling people here that it is a term that has historically only been used by Protestants?

 

[Naomi25]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. There are 1000 ways of expressing the same truth. What matters is that the essence of truth remains. There is a mechanism and protocol for Catholics to follow that isn't well known. We can object and report an idiot priest to the bishop. We can object and report an idiot bishop to the Apostolic Nuncio, who has the same authority as the Pope. Having 2000 years of experience, the Church deals with her idiots with a great deal of care. Excommunication is the last resort, but it is extremely rare.
What Catholics are obligated to accept are formal teachings, not opinions, sermons, TV interviews, even if it is from the Pope. "Catholics must do whatever the priest or Pope says" is a myth, but a Catholic would be stupid to ignore papal authority.
Formal teaching is a whole different ballgame.

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress...
...Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/history.htm

This explains why the 21st century Church does not appear to be an exact duplicate of the 1st century Church, but the essence of the truths contained has never changed.

...oops, I digress...

That was very interesting, thank you! And actually, the Protestant faiths function in a similar way, although I would say our "higher authority" is scripture, rather than formal teachings of the Church. The problem with the notion, however, and what we often see happening, is that people who don't know enough, aren't aware that they need to go "over the head" of the one teaching incorrectly. It supposes a level of understanding and spiritual maturity that already knows what they should be being taught. And often they are not, and so they take for granted what their pastor or priest teaches them...they put their trust in them. This is why teachers will have more to answer for before Christ...because they do have people putting their trust in them. They do have the prospect of leading those who don't know better, down an erroneous path.
I remember myself as a new Christian, and some of the things I "thought" I knew. It took time, a good, trustworthy teacher who was faithful to scripture, and scripture itself to reach a place where I now know enough to be able to go "hang on, what that person just said was not on the level". Back then, I probably would not have. I don't think we can always assume that everyone is able to know when they are being fed mistaken information.

 

[Phoneman777]

That's why you reject the Early Church Fathers. Martin Luther would laugh at your absurd Bible origin fantasies. Your hate cult has no credibility, neither do your false histories. Only an idiot would take you seriously after the SDA exposure on this board. You need a de-programmer and a psychologist, preferably members of the Association of Christian Therapists. The Rite of Exorcism demands a preliminary evaluation by a board certified psychiatrist. It turns out that 99% of the so called "possessed" are mentally ill. The odds are in your favor.

Me, a "cult" member? By defintion, a "Christian cult" is an "organization that calls itself 'Christian' but rejects the foundational tenets of Christianity", so by definition the Papacy is the greatest "Christian Death Cult" to ever grace the topside of the Earth. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm convinced that you and Bread of Life were -- ahem -- "preyed upon" by Papal Pedophile Priests and your blind devotion to and steadfast defense of the Papacy is just part of some twisted coping mechanism. Just one more reason to come out of that Papal darkness into the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, y'know.

 

[Heb 13:8]

the demons believe too, and tremble

Demons are not humans bbyrd, posting this every day doesn't change that fact.

 

[Heb 13:8]

Eph. 1:13-14 refers to the Sacrament of Confirmation, which is administered by a bishop using holy oil. "Sacrament of Confirmation" is a developed term that MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Um no, Eph 1:13-14 is offered through belief in the death burial resurrection only, not some religious cult activity.

The anointing is not some invisible action that is generated solely by the intellect.

It's invisible to the religious cults. Christ shows himself through anointing only to believers in Christ, and we all thank God for that.

You have been unsuccessfully hounding BoL with Calvinoid errors for several months. You must enjoy being constantly refuted.

Well, all I can do is plant the seed. It's up to the religious to accept Christ. It's not looking good though.

 

[Naomi25]

HI Naomi,

I'm not following your discussion with @epostle1 , I'd just like to make a comment on the above.

What you say above is not accepted in the CC. Every priest must teach the same doctrine and convey these doctrine in lessons given to the congregation either in a homily or in a bible study.

I admire the CC for this. It avoids the constant contradiction that we protestants argue about day and night. I know we agree on all the important facts that make us Christian, but so much nuance that can affect our walk is disputed. Although I do believe some reformation was necessary at the time of the 1,500's due to abuses in the CC, I have always disliked this about the reformation...the splitting of churches based on one idea.

Every system has its pros and cons. All summed, I'd have to say that just like a nation must have a President to keep the states in a unified system...so Christianity should have such a person to keep us unified. This does not exist in protestantism although every denomination or movement has its "pope"; a leader.

Hi! Well...they may have to "officially teach" a doctrine, but I actually question if that is happening in certain parishes. Consider:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...st-welcome-same-sex-marriage-weddings/9176702

This is an article that I came across a while aback. This is the one that I was referring to in my above conversations. This Priest, while "recognizing" the RCC refuses gay marriage, is clearly telling those around him that he sees it as fine. The article does not go into it, but are we to believe he doesn't have his reasons? He probably has, like other 'christians', found some sort of legitimacy within scripture to support his belief in it. And clearly he is not shy in talking about it.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...lic-priest-frank-brennan-20170901-gy8njv.html

Here's another Priest supporting it, loud and proud.
My point is simply that: The RCC has it's doctrine...yes. The Priest's were obviously taught it, had to acknowledge it and agree with it to become ordained. But life happens. Clearly, in the events that have come afterwards, some have come to think differently. And this is not so shocking. The current Pope himself is shaking things up a little. And besides, as we see within our own denomination, as you point out, despite having clear outlines on some things, people have an amazing ability to interpret even clear and simple things differently. Goodness...we have evidence of that here on this forum daily, do we not? People see, hear, understand and think about things differently. So while a Catholic Priest may have started off at a single point, we have sufficient evidence to say that some of them have ended up somewhere else. In fact...we KNOW, that some of them end up...far, far from what the Church teaches. Look no further than those who hurt the innocent. We know full well the RCC does not teach that. There is nowhere in it's teaching, or scripture that justifies or supports sex abuse. I would say there is nowhere in scripture, or the RCC (apparently) that accepts gay marriage. But there are Priests who do. So...we are left with only one conclusion...they do differ.

 

[Naomi25]

Grams is trying to make us believe that the Catholic Church in 1988 only celebrated Mass in LATIN. That is a DEAD giveaway that she is either LYING or that she belonged to some renegade pseudo-Catholic faction and NOT the Catholic Church.

The fact that neither she nor her parents ever owned or read a Bible is on THEM - not the Church.
As I stated before - my 91 year-old mother and HER parents were avid Bible readers and taught US to read it as well, so this nonsense of it being a "different time" back then is rubbish.

People are so willing to blame everybody ELSE but themselves for the decisions they make.

Look...no doubt there might be some onus on them for not seeking further themselves. But just as you complain that people are ALWAYS blaming everyone but themselves, you seem incapable of seeing that any fault might lie within the RCC. And that is not healthy or realistic.
But, as you don't seem to be getting me, I might just drop it at this point.

 

[Philip James]

But there are Priests who do. So...we are left with only one conclusion...they do differ

And if someone reports him to his bishop, the bishop should correct him..

Pax!

 

[Philip James]

"God's church is easily identified throughout history as those Christians to whom the relentless persecutions of Satan's Vatican agents were directed

Thats not good enough. Jesus founded a community that He said the gates of hell would not prevail against.
That means that community must still be around today else Jesus is a liar...

If Rome is your stumbling block then you should be in another apostolic community like the Orthodox...

If you're not in communion with the apostles then where are you?

Peace!

 

[epostle1]

Hi! Well...they may have to "officially teach" a doctrine, but I actually question if that is happening in certain parishes. Consider:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...st-welcome-same-sex-marriage-weddings/9176702

So what. One priest who voiced an opinion that clashes with Church teaching. One out of 420,000. How many same sex marriages has he officiated???

This is an article that I came across a while aback. This is the one that I was referring to in my above conversations. This Priest, while "recognizing" the RCC refuses gay marriage, is clearly telling those around him that he sees it as fine. The article does not go into it, but are we to believe he doesn't have his reasons? He probably has, like other 'christians', found some sort of legitimacy within scripture to support his belief in it. And clearly he is not shy in talking about it.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...lic-priest-frank-brennan-20170901-gy8njv.html

An Australian Jesuit priest has been banned by the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart from speaking publicly about same-sex marriage in the archdiocese.
https://cathnews.co.nz/2018/07/09/australian-jesuit-tasmania-same-sex-marriage/

Here's another Priest supporting it, loud and proud.
My point is simply that: The RCC has it's doctrine...yes. The Priest's were obviously taught it, had to acknowledge it and agree with it to become ordained. But life happens. Clearly, in the events that have come afterwards, some have come to think differently. And this is not so shocking. The current Pope himself is shaking things up a little. And besides, as we see within our own denomination, as you point out, despite having clear outlines on some things, people have an amazing ability to interpret even clear and simple things differently. Goodness...we have evidence of that here on this forum daily, do we not? People see, hear, understand and think about things differently. So while a Catholic Priest may have started off at a single point, we have sufficient evidence to say that some of them have ended up somewhere else. In fact...we KNOW, that some of them end up...far, far from what the Church teaches. Look no further than those who hurt the innocent. We know full well the RCC does not teach that. There is nowhere in it's teaching, or scripture that justifies or supports sex abuse. I would say there is nowhere in scripture, or the RCC (apparently) that accepts gay marriage. But there are Priests who do. So...we are left with only one conclusion...they do differ.

Could you scrape the bottom of barrel any deeper? You found a whopping "2" out of 420,000. Wow! I'm sure I could find far more than that. Unfortunately, it doesn't prove what you think it proves.
When a man gets ordained to the priesthood, he doesn't surrender his humanity.
This whole discussion began when unity of doctrine was asserted. Dissident priests is nothing new, but it has absolutely no bearing on universal unity of doctrine. It seems you are trying to disprove it with a few that "differ".

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth​

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to change her teaching on marriage and sexuality, which is partly why the world hates her so much. New Zealand and Australia seem to be more anti-Catholic than the Americans, and it shows in their media headlines.

Lastly, give me the name of your church, or non church, and all its doctrinal related churches. I'd like to research the number of same-sex weddings and sex scandals that occur, and we can do a comparison.

 

[epostle1]

Um no, Eph 1:13-14 is offered through belief in the death burial resurrection only, not some religious cult activity.

Ephesians 1:13-14 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Heb 13 Version:
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a religious cult activity, the promised Holy Spirit,
[/QUOTE]
Obviously you ignored the 7 verses I posted re: the anointing with oil for believers which confirmed their faith. I had you on ignore for a while because you flatly deny the very scriptures you claim to support. And your replies are ridiculous, and I don't think you are capable of rational discussion.
Acts 8:14-17 – the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood. denied by Heb 13:8

Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation. denied by Heb 13:8

Eph. 1:13 – Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.
denied by Heb 13:8

Eph. 4:30 – Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation. denied by Heb 13:8

Heb. 6:2 – Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation. denied by Heb 13:8

Heb. 6:2 – this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments – baptism, confirmation, death and judgment – which apply to all people. denied by Heb 13:8

John 6:27 – Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation. denied by Heb 13:8

Rev. 9:4 – the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4. denied by Heb 13:8

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, I:12 (A.D. 181) .
denied by Heb 13:8

Tertullian, On Baptism, 7 (A.D. 206) .denied by Heb 13:8

Ephraim, On Joel 2:24 (ante A.D. 373) .denied by Heb 13:8

Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 7:42 (A.D. 391) .denied by Heb 13:8

Pacian, Epistle to Sympronian, 1:6 (A.D. 392) .denied by Heb 13:8

Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, 16 (ante A.D. 394) .
denied by Heb 13:8

Apostolic Constitutions, 7,2:22 (A.D. 400) .
denied by Heb 13:8

Augustine, Letters of Petilian the Donatist, 2,104:239 (A.D. 403) . denied by Heb 13:8

Bread of Life has far more patience with you than I do.

 

[Heb 13:8]

I had you on ignore for a while because you flatly deny the very scriptures you claim to support.

I think the ignore list is best for both of us. Peace.

 

[epostle1]

[quoteE="Naomi25, post: 426072, member: 7237"]That was very interesting, thank you! And actually, the Protestant faiths function in a similar way, although I would say our "higher authority" is scripture, rather than formal teachings of the Church. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, but this is a common misunderstanding.
The Church is “under” the authority of the Bible in the sense that it will not contradict what is in the Bible. It is not “under” it in terms of the authority of the Bible being intrinsically superior to the authority of the Church. The Bible presents both and never implies that one is “higher” than the other.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davear...-and-the-dichotomous-protestant-tendency.html

​

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi! Well...they may have to "officially teach" a doctrine, but I actually question if that is happening in certain parishes. Consider:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...st-welcome-same-sex-marriage-weddings/9176702

This is an article that I came across a while aback. This is the one that I was referring to in my above conversations. This Priest, while "recognizing" the RCC refuses gay marriage, is clearly telling those around him that he sees it as fine. The article does not go into it, but are we to believe he doesn't have his reasons? He probably has, like other 'christians', found some sort of legitimacy within scripture to support his belief in it. And clearly he is not shy in talking about it.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...lic-priest-frank-brennan-20170901-gy8njv.html

Here's another Priest supporting it, loud and proud.
My point is simply that: The RCC has it's doctrine...yes. The Priest's were obviously taught it, had to acknowledge it and agree with it to become ordained. But life happens. Clearly, in the events that have come afterwards, some have come to think differently. And this is not so shocking. The current Pope himself is shaking things up a little. And besides, as we see within our own denomination, as you point out, despite having clear outlines on some things, people have an amazing ability to interpret even clear and simple things differently. Goodness...we have evidence of that here on this forum daily, do we not? People see, hear, understand and think about things differently. So while a Catholic Priest may have started off at a single point, we have sufficient evidence to say that some of them have ended up somewhere else. In fact...we KNOW, that some of them end up...far, far from what the Church teaches. Look no further than those who hurt the innocent. We know full well the RCC does not teach that. There is nowhere in it's teaching, or scripture that justifies or supports sex abuse. I would say there is nowhere in scripture, or the RCC (apparently) that accepts gay marriage. But there are Priests who do. So...we are left with only one conclusion...they do differ.

I don't need to read articles. I know priests that don't agree with certain matters that the church teaches. This is coming out to the light with this new Pope who is liberal and has even changed the doctrine of receiving communion once divorced, even though traditional catholics refuse to accept this change --- it HAS happened.

Some bishops also allow this to happen. Big changes are taking place, what I'm saying is that there is OFFICIAL doctrine and official positions within the CC.

This is lacking in the Protestant churches or we wouldn't be debating doctrine all day long!

This is all I meant. Personally, and secretly or not, we can believe what we want or can accept...but I'm sorry that the Christian church is not seen as unified.
Is this hypocritical or is this human?

 

[brakelite]

@GodsGrace Would the Protestant unite with the Catholic church, or the priest who disagrees with it?

 

[Naomi25]

So what. One priest who voiced an opinion that clashes with Church teaching. One out of 420,000. How many same sex marriages has he officiated???


An Australian Jesuit priest has been banned by the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart from speaking publicly about same-sex marriage in the archdiocese.
https://cathnews.co.nz/2018/07/09/australian-jesuit-tasmania-same-sex-marriage/


Could you scrape the bottom of barrel any deeper? You found a whopping "2" out of 420,000. Wow! I'm sure I could find far more than that. Unfortunately, it doesn't prove what you think it proves.
When a man gets ordained to the priesthood, he doesn't surrender his humanity.
This whole discussion began when unity of doctrine was asserted. Dissident priests is nothing new, but it has absolutely no bearing on universal unity of doctrine. It seems you are trying to disprove it with a few that "differ".

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).
​

Argh! I don't know whether to roll my eyes or laugh. Perhaps I'll do both! You continue to miss my point! I'm not trying to prove "disunity of doctrine" or whatever. All I was pointing out was that...shocker...a few differ. And guess what? A few differed. And sure, the RCC may have sacked them promptly when they found out. They may have been entitled to. I don't know and for this conversation, I don't care. It's not my point, at all. BOL flatly called someone a liar for saying that she experienced something within her Parish. He didn't try and corroborate facts, or even show any manners, seemingly. My only point has been to suggest that not every single Priest, service and building holds carbon copy preaching, ideas and beliefs, regardless of the standard line of the RCC. I didn't need to look any further than 2, and I didn't need to head for the top of the barrel, wherever that would take me....because two Catholic Priests outright admitted to thinking and believing something that you yourself say the RCC denies. That, sir, IS my point, my only point, and I dust my hands.

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth​

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to change her teaching on marriage and sexuality, which is partly why the world hates her so much. New Zealand and Australia seem to be more anti-Catholic than the Americans, and it shows in their media headlines.

Yeah...I was NOT making a comment on the Church and homosexual marriage. Happy to get into it if you want, but I don't think this is the thread, or the place.
Plus, I'm not really sure where you get the "Australia is anti-Catholic" thing from. Actually, I've been quite shocked ever since coming online, seeing how many Americans think Catholics are the sign of the beast, or whatever. Ridiculous. I am not anti-Catholic at all. I certainly don't agree with many of your doctrines, sure. But in the small town I live in, there are many Catholic people who are genuine, loving Christians whom I consider my brothers and sisters. When we get together and talk of Jesus, denomination doesn't really come into it so much, just that we are his.

Lastly, give me the name of your church, or non church, and all its doctrinal related churches. I'd like to research the number of same-sex weddings and sex scandals that occur, and we can do a comparison.

Honestly, haven't you read all my "Protestantism is just as bad" statements all the way through? And you know why I've put them in? Because no matter the denomination you belong to, it's full of people. Sinful people. Sure, forgiven, regenerated people, but still struggling. Not a single denomination is going to be perfect. I could tell you that I currently attend a Baptist Church. But I'd have to warn you that the Australian Baptist Church is different, I believe to the American. And then also there is also a fairly big jump to how the "city Churches" roll, to the small town ones. I don't believe we have any serious objection to the doctrinal decisions they've made...yet. But I know the congregation I belong to...if necessary we will break away to stay true to scripture.
But...again...I sort of feel like you're focusing on what was definitely NOT my point! I haven't been trying to point out scandals in the RCC! I used an example to make my point, that is all. And I prefaced it with the fact that 'we' have just as many problems along the same line. So, please...try and stop seeing me as jabbing at your denomination, okay? I'm not. I was trying to ask BOL to show a little grace while talking to others. That's all.