Anti-catholics Fear This

[ironmonk]

Interpretation arguments go round and round. When a Catholic says something about the bible, the anti-Catholic will say "no, you're wrong, that's not what it means"... and the anti-Catholic has no basis for his personal interpretation. (it would have to smell of elderberries to be anti-Catholic, always wondering about bible meanings... and if they think it doesn't smell of elderberries, then I guess ignorance is bliss)

The most ANYONE (anti-Catholic and non-Catholic) can say truthfully is that "we have a different interpretation from the Catholics". Then when they get into historical facts, they can't say a thing against the Church. It's a fact that the Catholic Church has been teaching the same faith and morals for 2000 years.

What all anti-Catholics fear....

1. Prove the the Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, by posting links to the parts of the Catechism and quoting verses in the bible...here is the link to the Catechism

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ built.

The whole basis of anti-Catholicism is all lies. Quotes taken out of context, and some totally fabricated.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,

ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) Interpretation arguments go round and round. When a Catholic says something about the bible, the anti-Catholic will say "no, you're wrong, that's not what it means"... and the anti-Catholic has no basis for his personal interpretation. (it would have to smell of elderberries to be anti-Catholic, always wondering about bible meanings... and if they think it doesn't smell of elderberries, then I guess ignorance is bliss)

(Me) The basis for our interpretations is called the discipline of hermeneutics. Roman Catholic theologians are very aware of this, and engage in the discipline just like Protestants.

(ironmonk) The most ANYONE (anti-Catholic and non-Catholic) can say truthfully is that "we have a different interpretation from the Catholics".

(Me) We can also say that the Roman Catholic interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny. Take, for instance, Romans 4.

(ironmonk) Then when they get into historical facts, they can't say a thing against the Church. It's a fact that the Catholic Church has been teaching the same faith and morals for 2000 years.

(Me) She condemned Semi-Pelagianism as heresy for rejecting the sufficiency of grace, but later rejected the sufficiency of grace herself at the Council of Trent.

She said that Christ's non-glorified body was just like ours at Chalcedon, but said that, unlike ours, it could appear in various, disconnected places across space and time, looking like bread and wine, at Trent.

(ironmonk) What all anti-Catholics fear....v

1. Prove the the Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, by posting links to the parts of the Catechism and quoting verses in the bible...here is the link to the Catechism

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

(Me) I'll get back to you in a day or two, after finding the appropriate cites in the catechism.

(ironmonk) 2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ built.

(Me) At that time, the Church was comprised entirely of the Roman Catholic Church. Moving on down the road, things changed. Schisms like those with the Orthodox and the Protestants changed the story.

(ironmonk) The whole basis of anti-Catholicism is all lies. Quotes taken out of context, and some totally fabricated.

(Me) Thank you for using reasoning and evidence, rather than just insulting your opponents. I'm sure that everyone reading this is convinced by your rude mockery.

[hyperdulia again]

i'm not sure mustbenothing is an anti-catholic. isn't it possible to just be a protestant.

[PedroX]

Mustbenothing,

"At that time, the Church was comprised entirely of the Roman Catholic Church. Moving on down the road, things changed. Schisms like those with the Orthodox and the Protestants changed the story."

How did the two great schisms change the story? If the early church was the RC church, how did the schisms change that fact?

Also, while you may feel that our theology does not stand up to scrutiny, (I think you referenced Romans 4) does that not prove Iron Monk's proposal that it is just a matter of opinion?

[ironmonk]

(Me) Thank you for using reasoning and evidence, rather than just insulting your opponents. I'm sure that everyone reading this is convinced by your rude mockery.

Nothing is finer than standing on the vantage ground of Truth. Protestantism is a religion based on protesting another. All the world was in dark for 1500 years while earth was with out the infallible 34,000 + and growing protestant churches. (TIC)

(Me) We can also say that the Roman Catholic interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny. Take, for instance, Romans 4.

You would prove that you are ignorant of Catholic teaching if you said that.

(Me) She condemned Semi-Pelagianism as heresy for rejecting the sufficiency of grace, but later rejected the sufficiency of grace herself at the Council of Trent.

She said that Christ's non-glorified body was just like ours at Chalcedon, but said that, unlike ours, it could appear in various, disconnected places across space and time, looking like bread and wine, at Trent.

How do you define "Semi-Pelagianism"? I know what it is...

Semi-Pelagianism was a theological movement common in France in the fifth and early sixth centuries. It was an attempted compromise between Augustine's teachings on grace and those of the heretical monk Pelagius.

Pelagius said the human will freely commits good or evil and that grace is needed only to help the will do what it already can do on its own. He said that we do not inherit original sin, physical death, or spiritual death from Adam. We learn to sin only by following the bad example of our parents and others.

Finally, Pelagius said that Christ does not bring us new life; he merely helps us by the good example he set for us on the cross, and by following his example we gain grace and are saved.

Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.

All of these propositions, together with those of full-blown Pelagianism, were condemned in 529 at the second Council of Orange (can. 5, 10, and 18) and again in 1546 by the Council of Trent (<Decree on Justification>, chs. 5, 6, 8, and 13). It is thus impossible to say that Catholic views on grace and free will are semi-Pelagian, for the Church explicitly condemns the errors of the semi-Pelagians.

(Me) At that time, the Church was comprised entirely of the Roman Catholic Church. Moving on down the road, things changed. Schisms like those with the Orthodox and the Protestants changed the story.

No kidding. You've cut my posting time in half!!! Thank you!!! I'm so happy we agree on that fact.

The Orthodox and Protestants didn't change the story... they tried, but man cannot change what God built.... Now, granted, they are written of in the bible...

Acts 20:30

And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

2 Peter 3:15

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

All who split off from the True Church are wrong to do so.

St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here, this english version has been translated 3 times... Originally in Aramaic (Kephas = rock)... Then the Greek were we get the different endings of 'Petros', one is masculine and one is feminine... following proper grammer they could not give Peter the feminine and that is why there is a differnence in the Greek to English... An Aramaic to English would read "...you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church..."

Peter's name in Aramaic was Kepha/Cephas as shown in John's Gospel and in Paul's letter to the Cornithians. Aramic is what was spoken and it means Rock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 1:42

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

The argument that Jesus was not calling Peter the Rock is wrong. Matthew was originally in Aramaic, Kephas is the word for Rock, no other translation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 21:15

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

This also shows the same as with St. Matt 16:18 that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus went to Heaven. Peter was the first Pope. Not to mention the fact that this was believed for over 1000 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. Matt 28:18

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

We believe that when Jesus said this to the Apostles, that the Church will always be around and in every Nation from the first Christians on... and that Jesus will always guide the Church... If Jesus is guiding the Church, then the official teaching of the Church cannot be wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"

We believe that if someone rejects the Church after seeing the Truth, through their own fault, that they are denying Jesus. Now, say for example someone is baptist and honestly believes (through no fault of their own) that the baptist church is the Church that Jesus started, then they are Catholic by desire... They have the desire to know the truth and if they are taught that the lie is the truth, then it's not their fault.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt 5:13

"You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.

15 Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.

We believe that the True Church that Jesus built will be visable for all to see, that it has been visible since the time of the Apostles... The Catholic Church is the only Church that is 2000 years old... The Catholic Church is the "City set on a Mountain that cannot be hidden." All through history, the Catholic Church has been there, all other Christian churches are less than 400 years old and they do not have a unity of faith.

Ephesians 4:1

I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,

2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,

3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:

4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Every Roman Catholic Church, teaches the same thing, everywhere.... if a single Priest teaches something against what the Church says to teach, that priest is breaking a vow to God to be obidient.

Ignorance is not bliss. Get the facts about the Catholic faith.

Take the challenge if the Catholic Faith does not stand up when scrutized.

I'll help you find whatever teaching you want, I'll give you the link so you can read it all for yourself.

I don't want what you think the Catholic Church teaches, I want you to show me the Catechism paragraphs, then explain how it is wrong. Some teachings are spread out in the Catechism and/or cross over into other topics, this is why I offer my assistance for you to find the teachings.

One note on why you think you can do the challenge is that you've listened to too many non-Catholic ramblings about the Catholic Faith which they know very little if nothing about.

Now, please stop delaying and attempt the challenge. Using the Catechism, Bible, and Early Church Father writings. Please use the link to the Catechism that I provided. It is on the US Bishops website.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Here is just a piece of what the one person who actually started to read the Catechism had to say about it from a protestant board that I posted this challenge.

_______________________________________

From: KIM C Sent: 7/11/2002 2:45 PM

To potters clay:

In response to your previous post,

<pot>Kim

"well said, BUT to be blind to false teachings is no excuse."

<kim>well said, But ? you obviously are refering to the last sentense and ignoring what I stated in the upper portion of my message..

<?>Being blind to false teachings and being blind to the truth are no excuse !

<pot>"the division between catholicism and protest ant, is that they claim to be the ONLY way to salvation.You must be a catholic,or of the cathoilc faith.."

<kim>Have you actually read any of my previous posts?

I have stated repeatedly that I'am a Christian ! (follower of Jesus) so I see that you have finally realized the connection..you know, Christian, Catholic, follower of Jesus..

this being so I greatfuly embrace my Brothers and Sisters in The Catholic Church.

<pot>Selectivly quoting scripture to meet ones own agenda and without understanding the scripture is not acting in Christ Jesus,

Since you refered us to 1st Timothy chapter 2..the scripture you quoted conterdicts part of what you say..and you quoted it..

<kim>So I ask you to read 1st Timothy 1: 3-7 concerning those who may teach different doctrine, occupying themselves with myths and endless geanologies which promote speculations rather than devine training that is in faith,

5. whereas the aim of our charge is tolove the issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.

6. Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion,

7. desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertations..

The Catholic Church has demonstrated it is unified, and The Catachism as far as I have read #600 is soundly and scripturally based,

You choose to ignore in posts what is clearly stated and pick and choose, moving aimlessly making attacks and with closed narrow mind you are not allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you...

I told you in my past post who and where the worlds church of satan, was,and is, you choose to ignore it...

You and some of the others who choose to stay in ignorance will be in my Prayers directly to Jesus Christ our Savior.

With Love in Christ Jesus,

Kim

______________________________

Point being that it was a great thing that someone actually started reading it, instead of listening to the jack chicks, rick jones, and ian paisley's of the world.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

"(Me) The basis for our interpretations is called the discipline of hermeneutics. Roman Catholic theologians are very aware of this, and engage in the discipline just like Protestants."

But it's a little thing called the HOLY SPIRIT that keeps the Churches interpritation consistant and True. whereas Protestants interpritations are a dime a dozen - leading to upwards of 30,000 splits in less than 500 years!

[cmotherofpirl]

"(Me) The basis for our interpretations is called the discipline of hermeneutics. Roman Catholic theologians are very aware of this, and engage in the discipline just like Protestants."

But it's a little thing called the HOLY SPIRIT that keeps the Churches interpritation consistant and True.  whereas Protestants interpritations are a dime a dozen - leading to upwards of 30,000 splits in less than 500 years!

Not only are we aware of it, we invented it.

Back in the day:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07271a.htm

[Paladin D]

Why would the Catholic Church invent such a thing, but then contradict it?

[Anna]

When has the Catholic Church contradicted hermeneunetics?

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) "At that time, the Church was comprised entirely of the Roman Catholic Church. Moving on down the road, things changed. Schisms like those with the Orthodox and the Protestants changed the story."

(PedroX) How did the two great schisms change the story? If the early church was the RC church, how did the schisms change that fact?

(Me) Let's say that you've got fifteen actors (thus, members of the actors' guild) who work in a troupe together. Due to a disagreement, they split into two groups. Does that mean that they're not still actors (and members of the actors' guild)? Of course not. The same is true of the schisms.

(PedroX) Also, while you may feel that our theology does not stand up to scrutiny, (I think you referenced Romans 4) does that not prove Iron Monk's proposal that it is just a matter of opinion?

(Me) No. We disagree, and I can provide arguments and evidence to justify my claims. Some people may not believe that water's boiling point is ~100 degrees Celsius. That is a disagreement, but it can be resolved -- we go boil some water. Likewise, by examining this passages in detail, we can resolve the conflict.

I would also like to point out that different people interpret Rome's teachings differently. Does that make Rome's teachings just a matter of opinion?

[ironmonk]

Please stick to the main topic.

Please post all other stuff in another thread.

This thread could get very long... that is why I ask that the rules to the first post be followed.

Thank You & God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited July 31, 2003 by ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) Protestantism is a religion based on protesting another. All the world was in dark for 1500 years while earth was with out the infallible 34,000 + and growing protestant churches. (TIC)

(Me) This is another mockery and misrepresentation of my position. Historically, Rome didn't really start getting into bad water until a few centuries before the Reformation. I'm a solid fan of, say, Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine, and many of the Early Church Fathers.

Additionally, your number is obviously misleading. There are very few (less than ten, if not less than five) groups today maintaining a substantial semblance of historic Protestant theology. Most of them are in close communion.

(Previous) She condemned Semi-Pelagianism as heresy for rejecting the sufficiency of grace, but later rejected the sufficiency of grace herself at the Council of Trent.

She said that Christ's non-glorified body was just like ours at Chalcedon, but said that, unlike ours, it could appear in various, disconnected places across space and time, looking like bread and wine, at Trent.

(ironmonk) How do you define "Semi-Pelagianism"? I know what it is...

Semi-Pelagianism was a theological movement common in France in the fifth and early sixth centuries. It was an attempted compromise between Augustine's teachings on grace and those of the heretical monk Pelagius.

Pelagius said the human will freely commits good or evil and that grace is needed only to help the will do what it already can do on its own. He said that we do not inherit original sin, physical death, or spiritual death from Adam. We learn to sin only by following the bad example of our parents and others.

Finally, Pelagius said that Christ does not bring us new life; he merely helps us by the good example he set for us on the cross, and by following his example we gain grace and are saved.

Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.

All of these propositions, together with those of full-blown Pelagianism, were condemned in 529 at the second Council of Orange (can. 5, 10, and 18) and again in 1546 by the Council of Trent (<Decree on Justification>, chs. 5, 6, 8, and 13). It is thus impossible to say that Catholic views on grace and free will are semi-Pelagian, for the Church explicitly condemns the errors of the semi-Pelagians.

(Me) I described semi-Pelagianism earlier -- a denial of the sufficiency of grace. While Trent carefully stepped around an explicit affirmation of any semi-Pelagian propositions, it supported a type of semi-Pelagianism by denying the sufficiency of grace. Certainly it cannot be argued that Trent did not deny the sufficiency of grace, as it repeatedly asserted that grace must always be resistible.

(ironmonk) Acts 20:30

And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

2 Peter 3:15

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

All who split off from the True Church are wrong to do so.

(Me) Protestants split because they found Rome's teachings to deny true Christianity. It was, then, a purification of the True Church -- not a split away from the True Church at all.

(ironmonk) St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here, this english version has been translated 3 times... Originally in Aramaic (Kephas = rock)... Then the Greek were we get the different endings of 'Petros', one is masculine and one is feminine... following proper grammer they could not give Peter the feminine and that is why there is a differnence in the Greek to English... An Aramaic to English would read "...you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church..."

Peter's name in Aramaic was Kepha/Cephas as shown in John's Gospel and in Paul's letter to the Cornithians. Aramic is what was spoken and it means Rock.

(Me) And?

(ironmonk) John 1:42

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

The argument that Jesus was not calling Peter the Rock is wrong. Matthew was originally in Aramaic, Kephas is the word for Rock, no other translation.

(Me) Of course Jesus was calling Peter the Rock.

(ironmonk) John 21:15

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

This also shows the same as with St. Matt 16:18 that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus went to Heaven. Peter was the first Pope. Not to mention the fact that this was believed for over 1000 years.

(Me) The fact that Peter was leader of the Apostles proves that he was the first Pope? That is quite a stretch in logic, unless we take "the Pope" to mean nothing more than "the most influential person in the Church." That would not include the massive Papal doctrines of Rome, however.

(ironmonk) St. Matt 28:18

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

We believe that when Jesus said this to the Apostles, that the Church will always be around and in every Nation from the first Christians on... and that Jesus will always guide the Church... If Jesus is guiding the Church, then the official teaching of the Church cannot be wrong.

(Me) Jesus told them that they could disciple the world with confidence because His power would aid their efforts. Nowhere is teaching infallibility in view here.

(ironmonk) Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"

We believe that if someone rejects the Church after seeing the Truth, through their own fault, that they are denying Jesus. Now, say for example someone is baptist and honestly believes (through no fault of their own) that the baptist church is the Church that Jesus started, then they are Catholic by desire... They have the desire to know the truth and if they are taught that the lie is the truth, then it's not their fault.

(Me) This all relies on your initial assumption -- that is, that today's Rome is the Church Christ built. You're not demonstrating your conclusion to someone who doesn't already accept it.

(ironmonk) Matt 5:13

"You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.

15 Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.

We believe that the True Church that Jesus built will be visable for all to see, that it has been visible since the time of the Apostles... The Catholic Church is the only Church that is 2000 years old... The Catholic Church is the "City set on a Mountain that cannot be hidden." All through history, the Catholic Church has been there, all other Christian churches are less than 400 years old and they do not have a unity of faith.

(Me) Same as above.

(ironmonk) Ephesians 4:1

I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,

2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,

3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:

4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

(ironmonk) Every Roman Catholic Church, teaches the same thing, everywhere.... if a single Priest teaches something against what the Church says to teach, that priest is breaking a vow to God to be obidient.

(Me) And?

(ironmonk) Ignorance is not bliss. Get the facts about the Catholic faith.

(Me) I could probably interact with you a little better if you'd stop the rudeness. I'm sure that no one on this site is impressed by your attitude.

(ironmonk) One note on why you think you can do the challenge is that you've listened to too many non-Catholic ramblings about the Catholic Faith which they know very little if nothing about.

(Me) I've read the Council of Trent, for instance.

(ironmonk) Now, please stop delaying and attempt the challenge. Using the Catechism, Bible, and Early Church Father writings. Please use the link to the Catechism that I provided. It is on the US Bishops website.

(Me) Stop delaying? It's only been a day or two. Reading a catechism takes time.

[mustbenothing]

(Jake Huether) But it's a little thing called the HOLY SPIRIT that keeps the Churches interpritation consistant and True.

(Me) This assumes your conclusion. Why should I think that the Holy Spirit maintains Rome's teaching infallibility, if I don't already believe it?

(Jake Huether) whereas Protestants interpritations are a dime a dozen - leading to upwards of 30,000 splits in less than 500 years!

(Me) I wish you would stop publishing such inflated numbers. There are less than ten major groups still upholding Sola Scriptura, and most are in fairly close communion. As a matter of fact, the only really major groups are the fundamentalists and the Reformed. I can think of three major groups upholding Divine Tradition and Church infallibility off-hand -- say, the Orthodox groups and Rome.

[ironmonk]

The numbers are not inflated.

The non-Catholic main groups have been continuing to split since the day when they were founded.

The two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia reports the overall results of the churches' megacensus costing the churches worldwide $1.1 billion every year. In this, the world's 34,000 organized denominations instruct their bishops, clergy, and lay leaders to report each year on the numerical state of their work. Some ten million questionnaires in 3,000 languages are returned to their headquarters quantifying 180 major subject areas. For instance, all Roman Catholic bishops are each required to answer 141 statistical questions annually.

http://www.samford.edu/groups/global/ewcmr...es/ew09409.html

I know it's been two days, I'm asking that this topic be for the challenge. Let me know if you need help finding something in the Catechism or the Early Church Father's writings.

God Bless,

ironmonk