[Ottofire]

>Actually he kept most if not all of his earlier beliefs about Mary. He also distorted scripture and deliberately mistranslated it, dropped books from the canon, etc.

Conjecture without support. Fail.

>No. Liberal Lutherans will have no influence on the Church. They are dying out anyway. Non-Catholics cannot be canonized by the Catholic Church. Luther wasn’t Catholic by the middle of his life.

The good Catholics in the link provided think that, sorry, that Unchanging Eddifice of the RCC is gonna change, as it has in the past. Disunity in the Church! Chaos!

>The only “faith alone” verse in James is where he clearly is saying there isn’t supposed to be any such thing.

Actually only the commentary that you have on that link was really saying that. But hey, you see what you want to see.

>>“Some Catholics, of course end up with some weird Works First which allows them to play footsie with the Moslems, Pagans, Hindu, etc by saying that the righteous ‘good work’-doing Moslem, Pagan, Hindu, etc can work his way to heaven, totally ignoring the fact they have no faith. Thus we get Mother Teresa saying she was trying to make the Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc into better Moslem, Pagan, Hindu etc, totally ignoring the fact that without faith that Jesus was the I AM, that they are going to take their seemly righteous works to hell with them. But hey, that is an off-topic rabbit trail.”

>Not only a rabbit trail, but a fantasy rabbit trail of your own creation.

I don’t know how many times I can ask, I believe Gamecock or Alex, to post that nice picture of John Paul II kissing the Koran, or shall we look to the Hindu’s dancing in the Cathedral in India, or perhaps read the nice quote from Mother Teresa about making Moslems better moslems, or that nice quote from the up and coming black archbishop saying that there MIGHT be some postmortem regeneration of the righteous unbelievers. Again, conjecture without support. Fail.

>onsense. It always amazes me how Protestants try so hard to push that line and it always backfires. Do you really think that St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk, a priest, devoted to the Eucharist, devoted to the Virgin Mary, who strongly supported the papacy, really would be a Lutheran, or Presbyterian or a Baptist if he showed up now in the 21st century? What your suggesting is as nonsensical as the “St. Patrick was a Baptist” trash that shows up every now and then. Please come back to reality.

I really think you are in a state of surreallity yourself. I never claimed they were Protestant. I would say most of them are early Christian or Mideival Christian, but have only traces of what eventually developed into the accreted traditions of the RCC. What I alway love is the assumption that Protestantism developed out of whole cloth by Romanists. It is one or the other with them. Either the RCC is right and Luther et al invented the whole thing, or everyone was Protty before Trent. That is just ridiculous. I do not see how you could come up with that idea from what I wrote, so I must assume you are placing your own presupositions and worldview in the sentence. Fail.

>What? When did the Church kill Muslims? When did the Church kill pagans? And Hindus? When? Where?

When the Church sends men under arms to retake the Holy Land, under the guise of Crusade, you are going to deny that the Church had some responsibility for the deaths incurred? Dude, you are in massive denial. Do you also say that the conquistadores were doing a good and Christian thing in South and Central America?

>>“Actually this is from the same source that Catholic Answers gets the 30k denominations of Protestant faith that follow Sola Scriptura.”

>Uh, no. The source for the 30,000 Protestant denomination idea (and 30,000 is a gross underestimation) is the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982).

Yeah. The World Christian Encyclopedia by Oxford Press. Did I not put that in my post?

>>“(Steve Ray in particular is in love with that claim. It is taken from the The World Christian Encyclopedia. (If you can find it, the denominations included in the list also includes the RCC, Orthodox, and other semi-christian churches, as well as all the christian cults like the Watchtower, LDS in all its hundreds (!) of forms.”

>Irrelevant. That still leaves, nearly 30 years later, at least 30,000 Protestant denominations.

Um, that includes all the RCC and the Orthodox churches, hit the link there is a photocopy of the page, and you can plainly see that. But even a brainwashed cultist knows the difference between the LDS and Watchtowerites and the Protestants. Do you? Even your Pope called the Protties an Ecclesiastical community though missing an apostolic succession. But you can do no other than put the Christian Cults in the same basket with the Protestants. Dude, for once I say this. Listen to your leader.

>Irrelevant. That still leaves, nearly 30 years later, at least 30,000 Protestant denominations.

Dude, seriously. No evidence to support your claim? FAIL.

>No. There are tens of thousands (actually I would say hundreds of thousands) of Protestant sects. You can whine about it, but that fact won’t change.

I could WHINE that there are ten thousand different sects in the Catholic Church, and repeat it as often as you make your baseless claim. I would be WRONG. Can you admit you might be. No? FAIL. Really dude, whine?

>>“Listed on the very next page is a list of how the millions of Christians have been martyred over the years. Luckily the RCC is only number five on the list, and if you see on the list here:http://mp3.aomin.org/images/jpeg/P11.jpg";;

>And what it says is nonsense. WHen did this happen? Where? How was it done? By whom?

Um, the same source that Catholic Answers uses for their 30k Protestant sects. I did write that, I believe. So I guess I can call it a source that Catholics use.

>>“I understated the Catholic body count by 1.9 million. Sorry, I was not checking my sources. Also note that the Protestants, listed as Other Christians by my guess, did indeed kill 222,000, most of which were probably Catholics during the wars of the Reformation.”

>And you’re still wrong. The Catholic Church did not kill 1.9 million or 4 million. Again, where’s the proof?

Again, it is a Catholic used source, ask Steve Ray about it sometime. I think he has a show you can call in.

>And you’re still wrong. The Catholic Church did not kill 1.9 million or 4 million. Again, where’s the proof?

>>“But hey, this is a book copied on an evil Anti-Catholic web site (oh, and used by Catholic Answers for their apologetics...).”

>Is it? So far all I see is a list with no source at all. Care to actually provide the proof? I have no reason whatsoever to trust James R. White. I have no reason to trust you. I also know from experience that there are tens of thousands of Protestant sects (there are no fewer than 4 major Lutheran sects in my town and apparently several smaller ones - and that’s just the Lutherans). Yet, I have never seen anyone persecuted to death by the Catholic Church. So, what evidence do you have that the photocopy is actually from the same book, and is actually accurate? So far, I see none of that.

Okay dude. I can see that you will not accept that any opponent of the Catholic Faith can be honest. I think that even if I got that book, and personally pointed it out to you, you would then say that the book was wrong.

If that is the case then I have really should just leave this conversation, for you are really not talking to someone that is honest in your mind, and I will twist facts and lie. If you think that I am doing that then we cannot have any kind of a serious talk here.

>Nancy Pelosi isn’t Catholic. She just hasn’t been formally excommunicated. That may happen one day. The same goes for Ted Kennedy. And, in case you haven’t noticed it, the Catholic Church has diocese. They are responsible for excommunicating Pelosi and Kennedy. There’s one Church, but it has many bishops and not all of them are doing their jobs.

>You have failed again. You must be getting used to it by now.

No actually the RCC has failed. Failed to discipline members, and allows them to continue to enjoy the title of Catholic. Lack of church discipline is a sign of a failed church. Bishops not doing their jobs? A sign of a failed church. Bishops not doing their jobs and still getting to be bishops? A sign of a failed church. Why does the Pope not rectify the situation? Politics anyone? A big blinking neon sign in front of the church that says FAIL.

>You and other anti-Catholics post often against the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. You and other anti-Catholics misconstrue Catholic beliefs and apparently don’t care one bit about correcting your mistakes. If you want to cry over being labelled an anti-Catholic, go ahead and do so. The behavior of anti-Catholics here, however, is manifestly anti-Catholic. That’s the way it is, so that’s what I said. And just as I thought would happen, you utterly failed to show how I was using “liberal victim terminology”. First, “anti-Catholic” is not a liberal term. The term is used by both liberals and conservatives and has been for decades. Second, I did not use it in anyway a liberal would in regard to a liberal issue. There are anti-Catholics here at FR so I used the correct and appropriate term anti-Catholic.

And you accused me of whining. I actually think of the term as a badge of honor. An anti-Catholic is someone that is against falsehood, so thanks!

>ROFLOL! Vatican II did not supercede any previous council. All councils must be interpreted according to the councils before and after them. Such is the teaching of the Church in regard to councils. The pope was always infallible. It just wasn’t defined by a council until the 1870s (not 1850s as you erronously stated) and it had been discussed in the same terms since at least the 13th century, and was nearly defined in council in the 15th century). You need to study.

Well, at least I got you to laugh. Um, where is an infallible interpretation of the councils? I would LOVE to see them. And I hate to correct you again, but the Pope cannot ALWAYS be infallible. He has to follow the tight laws of infallibility set forth in the 18-whenevers. You should know that, riiight? Please get YOUR dogma straight. Maybe YOU ought to study some too?

Oh, and I like that you are finally admitting that the accretion of tradition occurs. So much for the idea of the unchanging traditions.

>Protestantism is Liberalism. Everytime I see a Protestant attacking Christ’s Church - the Catholic Church - I am reminded of the fact that Protestant sects are de facto tools of Satan no matter how much good they accomplish oterwise. They were born in schism and heresy. They foment hatred of God’s Church, His sacraments, His mother and even His sacred word by distorting it. Protestantism was the first great step toward atheism.

Lol. Distorting His word? This is from a church that dissuaded people from reading His word for how long? Kept the people from having it even available in a language that they could read for how long? Thought that saying the word in a language that the people could not understand somehow was effective, like a spell or something?

>>“Actually, I hate to correct you, but Protestants use the oldest works of the Christian faith,...”

>Heresy and schism are not the oldest works of the Christian faith. Faith and the Sacarments are.

Lol, actually schisms are good. And you will agree, no, that the schism with the Arians and Pelagians was a good thing? Heck, you would even agree that Athanasius’s break with the near totality of the church, which was arian at the time, was a great thing. Athanasius contra mundum!

>>“...and do not accrete traditions to justify dogma.”

>Really? Altar calls, sinner’s prayer? Those aren’t traditions in some Protestant sects?

I can not speak to those, for, like all that hold to the Reformation, I look to the bible for authority, and I do not see that either of those traditions are biblical. Just as you cannot speak for those in the RCC that want to make priests outta women and homosexuals. If they do not respect the authority of the said group, they cannot truly be of that group, as I am sure you agree. I would never say that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were truly Catholic. But of course that would mean those who give Ted and Nancy the opportunity to participate in Mass are not truly Catholic either. Which would mean a good deal of the official Catholic leadership in the USofA are not really part of that church. Hmm.

>>“The RCC is the liberal flavor, the Reformed Protestants are the ones that are the most conservative.”

>No. There are (sadly) liberals everywhere. Liberalism was non-existent in the Catholic Church 200 years ago. That changed because of liberal Protestants. All Protestants are liberals by definition. Whereas the era of “Catholic liberals” will wane in less than a generation, liberalism will always haunt Protestant sects because Protestants are liberals.

I agree with you lament that liberals are everywhere, however to blame everything on the Protestants is a bit short sighted. There are always those in any group that want change. Often change is good. However never is change good in the foundations of the faith. Saying that the EVIL of protestantism is the cause of all the bad in the world is revealing. I now understand your prejudice. Unfortunately you could perhaps blame the Protestants for the Jesuits, and that in turn lead the RCC further from the faith. But I would suggest that those who want to have their ears tickled with humanist bullstuff are going to seek out humanist bullstuff. Those that hear His voice will come to Him.

Of course returning to the oldest writings is a great leap away from liberalism, and I would suggest that listening to those who hear from those who hear from those who heard from the apostles instead of actually reading what the apostles wrote is a good way to wander from that which is theopneustos. But hey, I just read what we both agree came from God. You listen to the faint and distant voices of saints long dead, picking through their words for that which God might have said. Do as your conscience tells you. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

>And Luther can never be canonized because he wasn’t Catholic, and died an unrepentent heretic, scismatic and excommunicant.

Well, I would truly hate to see that you were wrong. The ecumenical movement is sickening, and for the RCC to glom onto the atheist Liberal ‘protestant’ groups is stepping farther from the faith. Of course the footsie with the unbelieving moslem hindu and others continues. Erg. Watching that hurts from the outside, it must put your teeth on edge.

>They might, but your view misses at least two things: 1) a proper world view is Catholic, and 2) the Catholic here seem to know a whole lot more about the Catholic faith than the anti-Catholics. The Catholics also seem to know more about history, the Bible, common sense, logic and how to make an argument. Coincidence? Nope. The very fact that you can’t get basic facts about the Church right, but would never waver from attacking her, tells us all we need to know about the worth of your view.

Actually I have been a RC, when young, and not fully Catechized, I must add, and I listen to debates with RC views presented. I am not totally ignorant of the Catholic view, but I do know that there is the Catholic view and many problems with it. Unlike some, I can actually see problems with the Protestant view as well. But on this side of Glory things are not perfect.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Conjecture without support. Fail.”

Nope. Absolute success. Everything I said there about Luther was absolutely, irrefutably true.

“The good Catholics in the link provided think that, sorry, that Unchanging Eddifice of the RCC is gonna change, as it has in the past. Disunity in the Church! Chaos!”

No. There will be no canonization of Luther. It can’t happen, so it won’t happen. Non-Catholics cannot be canonized. Period.

“Actually only the commentary that you have on that link was really saying that. But hey, you see what you want to see.”

Again, no. James said men are not saved by faith alone. That’s what the verse says.

“I don’t know how many times I can ask, I believe Gamecock or Alex, to post that nice picture of John Paul II kissing the Koran, or shall we look to the Hindu’s dancing in the Cathedral in India, or perhaps read the nice quote from Mother Teresa about making Moslems better moslems, or that nice quote from the up and coming black archbishop saying that there MIGHT be some postmortem regeneration of the righteous unbelievers. Again, conjecture without support. Fail.”

And none of that disproves anything I’ve said.

“I really think you are in a state of surreallity yourself. I never claimed they were Protestant. “

You claimed they believed in a Protestant doctrine – faith alone. They didn’t.

“I would say most of them are early Christian or Mideival Christian, but have only traces of what eventually developed into the accreted traditions of the RCC. What I alway love is the assumption that Protestantism developed out of whole cloth by Romanists. It is one or the other with them. Either the RCC is right and Luther et al invented the whole thing, or everyone was Protty before Trent. That is just ridiculous. I do not see how you could come up with that idea from what I wrote, so I must assume you are placing your own presupositions and worldview in the sentence. Fail.”

No, again, you failed. None of the men you cited actually believed in Faith alone. None of them. Epic fail on your part. Not only that, but you have to borrow your failures from anti-Catholic websites.

“When the Church sends men under arms to retake the Holy Land, under the guise of Crusade, you are going to deny that the Church had some responsibility for the deaths incurred?”

Crusaders were not the Church and the crusades were moral. Epic fail for you again.

“Dude, you are in massive denial. Do you also say that the conquistadores were doing a good and Christian thing in South and Central America?”

Defeating and destroying the evil, devil worshipping, baby sacrificing Aztec and Incan empires in South America was a virtuous act. If defeating Nazism was a good, how was defeating the Aztec (who killed one fourth of their infant population in sacrifices) not a good?
Did all the Spanish act morally at all times? No. Were they wrong to destroy the Aztec Empire? No.

“Um, that includes all the RCC and the Orthodox churches…”

There are no Catholic denominations. No matter what lists says there are, there aren’t.

“Dude, seriously. No evidence to support your claim? FAIL.”

What I said was absolutely true. Just look in your local phone book. I have no less than four major Lutheran synods in my town. There are other lesser Lutheran synods here too. Then there are dozens and dozens of Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, Pentecostals, etc. Then there are literally hundreds of basement and garage denominations that don’t even have a name and may only number ten of fifteen people. That’s happening all over the US and all over the world. Hundreds of thousands of PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS.

“I could WHINE that there are ten thousand different sects in the Catholic Church, and repeat it as often as you make your baseless claim. I would be WRONG. Can you admit you might be. No? FAIL. Really dude, whine?”

I’m not wrong. It is simply logic: all those Protestant denominations exists. That can’t be refuted. There are literally dozens of denominations in my area that exist no where else. Duplicate that in every other area in the US and you end up with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. That is simply irrefutable. Again, open your phone book and count. How many do you find? Then think about all those small “Bible Study” groups that meet in your area on Sundays but actually serve as the ONLY church those people go to.

There are only about 10 Catholic parishes in a 30 mile radius around where I live. I may be overestimating by one or two parishes even. Yet there are dozens and dozens of Protestant churches from dozens of NAMED denominations, then there are a bunch of “non-denominational” churches and dozens of basement churches too. And my area is far from unique.

I can name churches that exist in my area that DO NOT EXIST in yours. You can do the same. Now, think about that all across the country. That’s HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. It’s simply irrefutable.

“Um, the same source that Catholic Answers uses for their 30k Protestant sects. I did write that, I believe. So I guess I can call it a source that Catholics use.”

And again, how do I know that White’s posted page is genuine? I have no reason to trust White or you. And again, why would I believe the source when it is so clearly wrong (unlike the thousands of denominations idea which I can see with my own eyes when I open the phone book or drive across town and realize the same situation exists all across America)?

“Again, it is a Catholic used source, ask Steve Ray about it sometime. I think he has a show you can call in.”

It is not a Catholic used source. It is a page on the internet from White at this point. 1) Again, I have no reason to trust White or you. 2) Even a source that contains some incorrect information, can get other things right. 3) This tidbit is wrong. 4) Even if Catholics use it to show evidence on one thing how does that prove anything else?

“Okay dude. I can see that you will not accept that any opponent of the Catholic Faith can be honest. I think that even if I got that book, and personally pointed it out to you, you would then say that the book was wrong.”

The book is wrong. Do you believe the book when it says that there are 30,000 Protestant denominations? Many Protestant apologists have worked over time to try and disprove that. I believe the book is actually wrong there too. There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS in the USA alone.

“If that is the case then I have really should just leave this conversation, for you are really not talking to someone that is honest in your mind, and I will twist facts and lie. If you think that I am doing that then we cannot have any kind of a serious talk here.”

I have no reason to trust you. I certainly have no reason to trust White. And you’re missing the point in any case. Even if the table is in the book, that doesn’t make it true. You seem to think that its existence is automatic proof of its accuracy. I don’t.

I know how to handle information. I was trained as a scholar and do not leap to conclusions as you’re doing. You assume that because some Catholics cite the denominations list that is supposedly in the same book that that means any other list in the book must be believed by Catholics too. That makes no sense. I see no reason to strictly believe either list. At this point I can’t even be sure there are in the same book and I don’t even see how that is relevant in itself. Insisting that it is in the same volume doesn’t do anything in this case to increase its accuracy.

Here are the problems with both lists:

1) The denominations list is flawed in that it incorrectly lists denominations within the Catholic Church that are not separate denominations at all.

2) The list is only a partial one. There are in reality many times more Protestant denominations as anyone can tell by taking a drive around any populated area in the USA. Again, the results someone would get from examining my town and its hundreds of different churches could be duplicated in every town of its size or bigger across the USA and the world.

3) The persecution list shows no sources and no logical framework. We know how many people were executed after inquisition trials and those numbers are incredibly low compared to 4 million. There is no logical reason whatsoever, therefore, to believe that list in regard to the Catholic Church.

Now, here’s where the two lists are still useful:

1) The denomination list still accurately shows that there is a buttload or Protestant sects no mater how you look at it even if they are dramatically UNDERCOUNTED.

2) The persecution list more accurately shows how many Christians were martyred by communists and secularists.

I know all of what I said to be true, because I have already done enough research in both areas to know 1) there are innumerable Protestant sects and 2) plenty of Christians were martyred by secularists and claims that the Catholic Church killed millions are baseless and even many times demographically impossible.

You may not like any of this, but it is true. Epic fail for you again.

“No actually the RCC has failed. Failed to discipline members, and allows them to continue to enjoy the title of Catholic.”

No. The Church failed at nothing. Individual bishops, however, did fail – including Pope John Paul II as he himself admitted.

“Lack of church discipline is a sign of a failed church. Bishops not doing their jobs? A sign of a failed church.”

No. A sign of failed men. The Church has always had some bad bishops, but the Church has never failed.

“Bishops not doing their jobs and still getting to be bishops? A sign of a failed church.”

No. A sign of failed men. Also, a sign of a Church divinely protected. Those failed bishops can’t destroy the Church by their inaction or their stupidity.

“ Why does the Pope not rectify the situation? Politics anyone? A big blinking neon sign in front of the church that says FAIL.”

No, the failure is yours. If you knew anything about this – and you don’t – you would know that the last two popes have decided to put things into the hands of God. They realize that they can only intervene so much. What is going on is a war of attrition. And the good bishops are winning, but it is extremely costly. Satan always attacks the Church. He did it by bringing up Protestantism as a schism and heresy to attack the Church – and it failed to overthrow the Church. Now he is attacking the Church by using men who think like Protestants to attack the Church from within rather than being thrown out like Protestants in the 16th century. This too will fail, but it will be costly. Souls will be lost. This current war may last another generation – perhaps even longer – but it will end and will be won by Catholics.

“And you accused me of whining. I actually think of the term as a badge of honor. An anti-Catholic is someone that is against falsehood, so thanks!”

No, thank you. Thanks for contradicting yourself. First, you complain that I am using “liberal victim terminology” by saying you’re anti-Catholic and now you admit I was right to use it in the first place. No, thanks to you.

“Well, at least I got you to laugh. Um, where is an infallible interpretation of the councils? I would LOVE to see them.”

Then look at the ordinary magisterium.

“And I hate to correct you again, but the Pope cannot ALWAYS be infallible. He has to follow the tight laws of infallibility set forth in the 18-whenevers. You should know that, riiight? Please get YOUR dogma straight. Maybe YOU ought to study some too?”

I never said the pope was ALWAYS infallible – as in every statement he ever made always was infallible. If you’re going to claim I made an error, make sure you actually get what I said right and don’t dishonestly twist words as anti-Catholics are so wont to do. I said the pope was always infallible – not that every statement he made was infallible. Papal infallibility was always with him, it just only applied when he defined doctrine for the whole church in an official manner.

“Oh, and I like that you are finally admitting that the accretion of tradition occurs. So much for the idea of the unchanging traditions.”

I said no such thing. Papal infallibility always existed. Papal infallibility is no different now then it ever was. There has been no change in the tradition. There is only a better understanding of the tradition. Again, you have to resort to dishonestly twisting words. How typical of an anti-Catholic.

“Lol. Distorting His word? This is from a church that dissuaded people from reading His word for how long?”

Never. The Church always taught that it was good for men to know God’s word. The Church also taught – and still teaches – that men can unintentionally and intentionally twist God’s word, distort it, come to erroneous conclusions about it and so on.

“Kept the people from having it even available in a language that they could read for how long?”

Never. There were always vernacular translations – as the Protestant translators of the KJV made clear in their own preface or introduction to the reader.

“Thought that saying the word in a language that the people could not understand somehow was effective, like a spell or something?”

I have no idea of what you’re talking about. If you mean Latin, Latin was used because it had always been used in the West as far as people could remember. Yet the scriptures were always translated in part or in toto – both orally and in writing – wherever the Church went throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern era. I’ve read parts of the Bible in Old English, for instance.

“Lol, actually schisms are good. And you will agree, no, that the schism with the Arians and Pelagians was a good thing?”

We see here that the Protestant thinks much like Satan would have him think. No, I see no reason at all to think the schism caused by Arians and Pelagians was a good thing. Also, note how you say “the schism with”? As if we were talking about equal parties in an amicable divorce. The Arians denied the divinity of Christ. They were not Christians. They chose to defile themselves with heresy and schism. They separated themselves FROM THE Church, not WITH the Church.

“Heck, you would even agree that Athanasius’s break with the near totality of the church, which was arian at the time, was a great thing. Athanasius contra mundum!”

No such thing ever happened. Athanasius – as you quote but do not recognize what the quote means – stood against the world. He never once stood against the Church. The Arians were not of the Church. They were of the world. No one can be of the Church and deny Christ’s divinity. To deny Christ’s divinity is to automatically deny that the Church is His body so how can a person be in what he denies exists? Athanasius never once broke with the Church. Arians broke with the Church and thereby Athanasius who always stood by the Church.

I am not surprised that these concepts are foreign to Protestants. They go right to the heart of not just who Christ is, but what ecclesiology is, and what heresy and schism aren’t. Apparently Protestants cannot see any of that very clearly. No surprise there.

“I can not speak to those, for, like all that hold to the Reformation, I look to the bible for authority, and I do not see that either of those traditions are biblical. Just as you cannot speak for those in the RCC that want to make priests outta women and homosexuals. If they do not respect the authority of the said group, they cannot truly be of that group, as I am sure you agree. I would never say that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were truly Catholic. But of course that would mean those who give Ted and Nancy the opportunity to participate in Mass are not truly Catholic either. Which would mean a good deal of the official Catholic leadership in the USofA are not really part of that church. Hmm.”

As usual, you contradict yourself and common sense. Just a moment ago you said Athanasius stood against the Church, when he never did. You are essentially saying that because some bishops – including many eastern ones (very few Western ones by the way) went Arian, that it was Athanasius who was outside the Church. No, it was the Arians. Now you say that those who do not do what you think is right in regard to Ted and Nancy are not Catholic. No, it is you who are not Catholic, not in the Church. A man might be a weak and cowardly Catholic, but still a Catholic, whereas you are not a Catholic at all and thereby not in the Church at all.

I am always amazed by the hatred and envy of anti-Catholics. So many of you folks are so desperate to fix our internal difficulties while at the same time denouncing us in all manner of ways. What our bishops do or don’t do in regard to Ted and Nancy is in no way your problem, yet one cannot help but conclude that you have taken it upon yourself to make it your problem. Soon enough Ted will be dead. Nancy too in some years. You too. And me too. And the Church will still be here. As far as I can see that Church that you seem to be so angry at for not bending to your whims – that Church that you say failed – will go on without ever taking notice of you flinging insults at her from your hole in cyber space. You will FAIL. You will pass on and decay away and the Church will still be here serving God long afterward. Epic fail.

“I agree with you lament that liberals are everywhere, however to blame everything on the Protestants is a bit short sighted.”

I did no such thing. I blamed Protestantism for what it was responsible for ONLY.

“There are always those in any group that want change. Often change is good. However never is change good in the foundations of the faith. Saying that the EVIL of protestantism is the cause of all the bad in the world is revealing. I now understand your prejudice.”

I have no prejudice. I just see things as they actually are. Protestantism was not started by Christ. It was not started by God. That automatically tells us who is responsible for Protestantism and that isn’t a pretty picture indeed. That’s not a prejudice. That’s just common sense.

“Unfortunately you could perhaps blame the Protestants for the Jesuits, and that in turn lead the RCC further from the faith.”

What? Why would I blame the Protestants for the Jesuits and why would I think the word “blame” even makes sense. The Jesuits were not started by Protestants nor did the Jesuits even come into existence to battle Protestantism as you might believe. Look at the earliest years of the Society of Jesus and you see the earliest members wanted to die as martyrs preaching to Muslims. And I still wouldn’t “blame” Muslims for the Jesuits either.

“But I would suggest that those who want to have their ears tickled with humanist bullstuff are going to seek out humanist bullstuff. Those that hear His voice will come to Him.”

Yes, they come to the Church too. Those who wants something less than the truth, get their ears tickled in Protestant sects – HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PROTESTANTS SECTS.

“Of course returning to the oldest writings is a great leap away from liberalism, and I would suggest that listening to those who hear from those who hear from those who heard from the apostles instead of actually reading what the apostles wrote is a good way to wander from that which is theopneustos. But hey, I just read what we both agree came from God. “

No you don’t. If you did, then you would read Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc. too. You read what you’re comfortable with and interpret those things in ways that comfort you. Perfectly natural…for the natural man.

“You listen to the faint and distant voices of saints long dead, picking through their words for that which God might have said. Do as your conscience tells you. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

The voices of the saints are neither faint nor distant (Rev. 11:15, 12:10) to those who have ears to hear.

“Well, I would truly hate to see that you were wrong. The ecumenical movement is sickening, …”

Most Protestant movements are. But this too shall pass.

“…and for the RCC to glom onto the atheist Liberal ‘protestant’ groups is stepping farther from the faith. Of course the footsie with the unbelieving moslem hindu and others continues. Erg. Watching that hurts from the outside, it must put your teeth on edge.”

I long ago realized men are sinners. If I am not surprised that millions of Protestants – who are often so loud in calling upon the Lord – are in fact unwitting tools of Satan, then why should I be surprised that some Catholics make the same mistake since they now live in such a thoroughly Protestantized world and culture?

“Actually I have been a RC, when young, and not fully Catechized, I must add, and I listen to debates with RC views presented.”

So what? I wrote this:

“They might, but your view misses at least two things: 1) a proper world view is Catholic, and 2) the Catholic here seem to know a whole lot more about the Catholic faith than the anti-Catholics. The Catholics also seem to know more about history, the Bible, common sense, logic and how to make an argument. Coincidence? Nope. The very fact that you can’t get basic facts about the Church right, but would never waver from attacking her, tells us all we need to know about the worth of your view.”

How does your admission of being Catholic when you were young change anything I said? It doesn’t. You even admit you were not well catechized and I have seen no evidence that that has changed. So, how does your admission change what I said? It doesn’t.

“I am not totally ignorant of the Catholic view, but I do know that there is the Catholic view and many problems with it. Unlike some, I can actually see problems with the Protestant view as well.”

Perhaps your problem is you.