Hoddie

The Catholic Church has as its sole rule of faith, the "entire" Word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally…Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down…this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about “tradition”:2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and 1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition. 1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Idiocy, plain and simple. This is nothig more than anti-Catholic jargon with *ahem* nothing to back it up. (go figure) Besides, even if Satan was (as you so unintelligently suggest) the head of the Catholic Church, he is doing a pretty poor job at it.

Sorry, my mistake, I ment 3:15. p.s. where you going to address my list? Peace

So who were these men you speak of? They surely couldn't have been Protestant since Protestantism didn't come into exsistance until the 16th century. Because you have not! By using your "Bible Alone" way of belief, you have not shown how you received your Canon of Scripture. Don't know why "you" aren't listening! Say's who? Then maybe you can explain to me what is the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1Tim.3:13? 　 I deny it because it is un-biblical, so you should too. No where does Scripture state that the "Bible alone" is all we need for a sole rule of faith. If you disagree, show me in the Bible where it says, SOLA SCRIPTURA, only the Bible. 2Thes 2:15, "Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our Epistle'. This verse is telling you to honor the traditions which have been handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation." Translation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditions equals the 'whole' word of God. Lol! First off, I'm not your "sistah", I'm a man. Secondly, I seek no approval from you or anyone else for that matter when it comes to my beliefs. And as far as you beleiving in the bible alone, and if any teachings that are not in the bible you/we will have nothing to do with them, how about these? 1.Modern Christian pastors standard practice of REmarrying divorced Christians previously joined by God in a Christian ceremony. 2. The Sinners Prayer 3. Bible only Christian churches objections to alcohol and dancing. 4. The Altar Call 5. Bowing ones head and closing of eyes when praying. (not that it is a bad thing) 6. Scripture interprets Scripture. Please show a Chapter and verse where these six items are in the bible. If you cannot, are you willing to dismiss them as teachings not of the bible, and not to be practiced? Still wish to hold to that? All Scripture what, as a sole rule of faith? Chapter and verse please. And please spare me the quoting of 2 Timothy 3:16–17, for nowhere does it claim Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. Because an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means. The context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture "and tradition" in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry. 　 Peace

Hey Marilyn, the point I was trying to make is that the Masoretic Text (MT) is a strikingly juvenile version of the original Old Testament dating back to the one thousand a.d. at the earlyist. Being so young it bares very little authority on what the original text contained despite the fact that it is written in Hebrew. Now on the other hand, the Septuagint (LXX) can be traced to the third century b.c. The oldest of these manuscripts of the LXX are the Leviticus and Deuteronomy remnants dating back to the second century b.c. So my arguement is that the LXX is very much older than the MT by one thousand plus years, and in being so, is more reliable given in the light of related criticism. Peace

I think not Erza! You have however inadequately tried answering with nothing more than your personal opinions. Nowhere have you shown from Scripture where you got your Canon of Scripture. And as far as 'trolling' goes, the only thing I troll for is Silvers, Chinooks, and Stealhead on the N. Santiam River here in my home State. You would like that wouldn't ya, but sorry I've gotten under your skin, some of us have to keep you in check! 　 Peace

And who do you beleive were the ones He (The Holy Spirit) was overseeing, and when did this take place? They surely couldn't have been Protestant, since Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century, wouldn't you agree? So if it wasen't Protestants, who was it? What only other church exisited when the Canon of the bible was determined? I know the answer, do you? Thats an intersting statement Willa, could you explain then, out the tens of thousands non-Catholic sects, (with new ones appearing every week) all using the same bible, why each interprets it differently? They all claim to be "Spirit filled" and as you say... "discern the truth from error" yet all can't hold the truth. Would you not agree that common sence shows that this mentality is not in line with the teaching of Jesus? In Jn.10:16 He called for "One" fold with "One Sheperd". Would you also agree that these divisions of the Body of Christ are in opposition of Scripture, and it could never be possible that the Holy Spirit creating such divisions? So the question remains....somebody has to be in error, which of these sects are, and which are not? Without "One Fold" or "One Sheperd" among these different sects, who is to determine who is or who isn't? (in error) And your acid test would fail. Nowhere in Scripture will you find Jesus saying "all the answers you need will be found in the bible." The problem non-Catholics have is grasping the fact that "all of the Word of God" was at one time passed on orally…Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down…this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about "tradition": 2 Thes 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to "stand firm and hold to". Sacred Scripture and 1 Cor 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 2 Tim 2:2: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition. 1 Thes 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers." So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And what do you have without any authority? (i.e. Magisterium of the Catholic Church)Thousnds of different sects with as many interpretations of Scripture, which eventually leads to confusion, which leads to disunity as we see within the non-Catholic sects today. And without any type of authority, who determines which sect is "filled with God's Spirit", and whos is not, yours? The one down the street? The one across the street? With so much division, they all can't be correct. Yes, I agree, the disunity among all the non-Catholic sects is sad. Fortunately in it's two thousand plus year history, the Church started by Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church has never diminshed the work of the Holy Spirit. Well, that rules out us Catholics. The reason being because those in heaven are more alive than we are. The Lord is God of the living, not of the dead. The fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful (Jas 5:16). Those in heaven are surely righteous, since nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rv 21:27). Those in heaven are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and have not been separated from us by death, but surround us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1). They stand before the throne of God and offer our prayers to him (Rv 5:8) and cheer us on as we run the good race. Intercession among members of the body of Christ is pleasing to God (1 Tm 2:1-4) and even commanded by him (Jn 15:17). Those in heaven have a perfected love, so how could they not intercede for us? Christ is the vine, and we are the branches; if we are connected to him, we are inseparably bound together as well. Can the eye say to the hand, "I need you not"? Neither are we to say we don’t need the prayers of our brothers and sisters (alive here or in heaven), because salvation is a family affair. So you can never ask someone to pray for you? If so, that I find very sad. Yes we will. Being a sinner, this is why I am thankful for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And as I asked before, who is it that determines who has the truth, and who does not? Hmmm.... which one, or whom among the thousnds of different non-Catholic sects is the "we" you speak of, and how do they/you come to the conclusion that I'm not enlightened by Gods Spirit? So in closing Willa, I again ask.... Can you show me using your bible, where you got your Canon of Scripture? And when doing so, could you also show me using your bible where it shows what the Contents at the front of your bible are determined? If all we need to know come from the bible alone, wouldn't or shouldn't this be in Scripture? 　 Peace

How can you possibly try to correct someone when what you preach (Sola Scriptura) is not only incorrect, but unbiblical aswell? All we can do is point you to the truth, it's up to you whether to accept it or not. Peace

Come on Haz!!!! After a while, this ignorance starts to get a bit old. I think a Catholic Apologist, Fr. Vincent Serpa explains it the best. "These are merely an examples of hyperbole which is defined as: obvious and intentional exaggeration. The second definition clarifies even further: an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity." Oh I see....... now you are going to play thee ol' Sola Scriptura card huh. Which is unbiblical in itself! Good grief! But if thats what you want to play, answer this. Besides, Sola Scriptura, (bible alone) show me where the "Altar Call", (do you even have an altar in your church?) The "Sinner's Prayer" , or the common practice among most every modern non-Catholic service to serve shots of "grape juice" for communion rather than wine as the Bible speaks of? Just to name a few! I'm not sure you relize how right yo are Haz! And Willa,,,, I will address your post next okay, right now I am feeling the effects of a little jet-lag. Anyhoo, looking forward to our future discussions on the topic at hand. (which has yet been answered, on this thread or on Hazards, "Conversions Awakens" thread.) Peace 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　

You did no such thing Haz! But I'll get to that in a moment. With that being said, and if you haven't noticed, I haven't posted in a while. The reason being, I've been on "Vay-Cay"! Did Ya'all miss me? Anyhoo...I'm willing to bet some of ya missed me like ya would miss a tooth-ache! Lol!........... Come-on now......... just having a little fun. Now, back to the matters at hand. First off Hazard, I just so happened to look in on your own.... "Conversions Happens" thread, and sorry to say, it looks as if R.P. destroyed your credibility when it come to the Catholic Church and her teachings. Sorry. I gotta say tho Haz, you being a so-called former Catholic, (so you say) and beleiving you are well educated in the Catholic faith, it has gotta sting a little, you being exposed of your ignorance in reguards to the Catholc faith. I was always aware of it, but it's nice to see that others have also come to see it aswell. The reason being Haz, have you not noticed how many non-Catholics have failed to come to your defence in your very own thread? Ouch!! Yes, I left it out because it was nothing more than utter nonsence, with nothing to back it up! Sheesh! What??? as usual, you are not making a whole lot of sence here Haz. Please show where the Catholic Church change Scripture? Okay......and the reason for you posting this passage is????? Would you care to give your fallible and open for error reason why?

Catholics don't need to ask them, for we know who determined what books were to be included in scripture. The question is.... who do you think did if the bible does not list them? Peace

Lol! Hazard. Not only are you hacking up scripture with your Cafeteria Christianity to help your argument, but you are hacking up Catholicanswers.com aswell? Lol! Here, I'll post it in it's entirity for all to see your Hack-job of the Apologetic web-site: Catholicanswers.com. Full Question: I understand the Code of Canon Law is a list of 2,000-plus laws of the Church. Are these laws subject to change over time? If so, where does the Church get the authority to change them? Answer: The current Code of Canon Law (1983 ed.), released by Pope John Paul II, has 1,752 canons. The former canon (1917) was the one with over 2,000 canons (2,414, to be precise). These canons are rules related to the governance of the Church, and they are now divided into seven headings: general norms, the people of God, teaching mission of the Church, sanctifying mission of the Church, temporal goods of the Church, penal law, and procedural law. Many of these laws are subject to change over time as the Church sees fit, while others are not. For example, the discipline of women wearing a veil at Mass was not retained in the newer code, and so the practice is not required. However, others things in the code, such as the doctrine expressed in canon 900 §1 (1983), cannot be changed over time. This canon states the doctrine that only a validly ordained priest can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist. Like any other social and visible structure, the Church has norms to order the functions that have been entrusted to it. Just as the citizens of the state are to obey the speed limit, and a son is to listen to his mother’s rules, canon law is to be observed by members of the Church—which is both the kingdom and the family of God. The Church gets her authority from Jesus to make these laws. He told the leaders of his Church, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:19, 18:18). This language of "binding and loosing" was a Jewish phrase that was that meant forbidding and permitting. This pertained to the ability of scribes and Pharisees to establish rules of conduct for the faith community, and the good Jew was called by Christ to obey them (Matt. 23:3). Since Jesus gave this authority to the leaders of his Church, they have authority to do such things as establish feast days and lay down laws for the good of the community.--Answerd by Jason Evert, catholicanswers.com Nice try my friend, but your hackjob fails Did you think I would forget Hazard (or did you) what you said back on the Lourdes thread? "The difficulity in determining the biblical canon is that the bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the bible." -quote Hazard Now if (as you say) the bible does not give a list of the books that belong in the bible, how and when was it determined, and by whom? As R.P. asked in the Lourdes thread.... Where did it come from? Who approved your canon of the Scripture? How did it come to be compiled? 　 And please try not to do another hack-job! Lol! 　 Peace

When was (year,century) it then, and who were these Christians that you believe this event was to have happened, pre-Reformation or Post? Why, by what authority do you believe this? Where does it state this in Scripture? If scripture alone is sufficient for every need of the Christian, why dosen't Scripture tell/show us a list (canon) of what books were to belong in the Bible and which books were not? Thats leaving out a pretty big bit of information.... wouldn't you say? I know this is getting a tad-bit off topic of my own thread, but using your Sola Scriptura (the bible only) please give your explanation of these passages, okay? In Matt. 11:21, it say's.... "Woe to thee, Corozain...For if in Tyre and Sidon had been worked the miracles that have been worked in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." ---What are these miracles in Corozain? Where is the reference? Also in Matt. 23:2, it says....."The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses."----Where is this 'chair of Moses' referenced in Scripture? In Acts 20:35, it say's.... "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and REMEMBER the Word of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"---Show me the verse where Jesus said these words. Again in Matt. 2:23, "And He went and settled in a town called Nazareth; that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."----In what verse did the prophets say this? Oh yes.... the passages that Sola Scripturists believe explains it all. Your first error here is to never take verses out of context". violating this basic rule, will invariably attempt to show that the Bible will "prove" what you teach is true. It is a well known fact, that verses taken out of context can be made to "appear" to support practically any heretical teaching. Instead of conforming your teaching to Scripture, folks like you who do this attempt to twist Scripture to conform to your teaching. Always remember Erza, "a text without a context is a pretext and nothing more! If you were to look at these passage in context, you would see that "nowhere" does it say Scripture "is sufficient" as a sole rule of faith! One other thing you must remember Erza....Your unbiblical man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not only un-Scriptural, but is not historical either! History shows/proves it didn't exist for the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity! Now back to the original question: Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture? Peace

Hello Marilyn. When you say "Seems to me" are you suggesting that you are not sure? Also, let me ask you the sme thing I asked Willa......wouldn't you agree Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint? And then there is my original question. "Can you tell/show me where you got your Canon of Scripture? 　 Peace

Then you should have no problem showing this to be true using your sola scriptura formula. Which reminds me, how come nobody has said if they agreed or dis-agreed with Hazards statement? Peace

So in other words, you got nothing! Go figure. Sure you want to go there? 　 Peace

Hmmm.... Wikipedi huh? Well Willa, maybe you (or your source, Wikipedia) can explain why in Acts 7:14 St. Stephen says that Jacob came to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 says "70," while the Septuagint’s says "75," the number Stephen used. After pondering on this, wouldn't you agree Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint? If not.... why not? After you respond to this, I'll address the rest of your post Not at all, but we'll soon see about you. 　 Peace

A question from the Catholics here on Worthy Christian..... Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture? 　 I'm talking about the Canonical books that are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books considerd to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. This question has been asked on numerous occasions in the past, and more recently in the now closed Lourdes thread. Many have claimed to have answered this question, but have failed to show any historical or Scriptural evidence to back it up. Back on the last page (pg.8) Hazard made an intersting comment coming from someone that adheres to the sola scriptura doctrine. as Follows. Now if the bible does not give a list if the books that belong in the bible as Hazard states, how do Sola Scripturists determine that the books that are in the bible truly belong there? From a Protestant/nondenominational perspective, and if its not in the bible, by who's or what authority determined it? Do those of you that beleive the bible alone holds all truth, and is sufficient as a sole rule of faith agree with Hazard? If so, doesn't this contradict the premise of Sola Scriptura? 　 Peace

No you didn't..... The only thing you all did is..... as R.P. said. "Danced around it" And a square dance at that! How do I know your not making this up? Am I suppose to just take your anti-Catholic word for it?? Yeah right! Guess you'll just have to wait and see about that, now won't you. What.... more of your Cafeteria Christianity Haz? 　 Peace

So much for your Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) Theory. Oops! Thanks for clearing that up for us Hazard! Peace

What did I tell ya R.P. They can't so........ on "ignore" you go!

Refure to the Yellow Pages of your phone book and go to "Churches". When you do, count and see how may different Protestant/non-Denominational/ churches there are in your town/city alone. And thats not counting the ones that hold thier services in a school gym/garage/barn/ect. ect. that are not even listed. After you have done that BacKaran, multiply that with all the cities/ towns/villages throughout the globe. It is up to you to back up your claim with proof, not ours. And seeing you didn't, you are letting the world know that you cannot. tisk....tisk! First off, it sounds as if you may have a serious case of homophobia. I also wonder if the rest of the non-Catholic community here on Worthy condones your use of the term..."Homos"? Secondly, the Catholic Church accepts sinners of all walks of life, such as Theives, Prostitutes, Embezzlers, liars, Drug users, and yes.... even Homosexuals. However, the Catholic Church does not condone the sin of these people commit, she will, (just like Jesus didn't) not turn her back on these sinners! I find it very sad that your church/ belief system does. Not so long ago, Pope Francis urged thousands of pilgrims gathered on St Peter’s Square this morning to recognise that we are a Church of sinners but that we must not be afraid of holiness. "Do not be afraid to aim for holiness and turn yourselves over to the love of God. Holiness does not mean performing extraordinary things but carrying out daily things in an extraordinary way – that is, with love, joy and faith," the Pope said. Pope Francis asked in what sense could the Church be holy if we look at its 2,000 year history and its trials, problems and moments of darkness. "But how can a Church made up of human beings, of sinners, be holy?" Referring to St Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (5: 25-26), he said that it is Christ’s love for the Church and his sacrifice that renders the Church holy. The reasons, he continues, are three-fold: firstly, the Church is faithful to God, who does not abandon it to the "powers of death and evil"; secondly, because it is "united in an everlasting way to Jesus Christ"; and thirdly because it is led by the Holy Spirit "who purifies, transforms and renews it". "We do not make the Church holy," he said. "God, the Holy Spirit, does." The Church is not without sin because it is made up of sinners. Priests, sisters, bishops, cardinals and even Popes are sinners. Pope Francis warned us not to believe the misconception that the Church is filled only with the "pure" and that all others are to be "removed". "This is not true!" he exclaimed. "This is heresy!" He concluded by recalling the parable of the prodigal son, reminding us that God waits for us with open arms and celebrates when we return. God wants us to be a part of a Church that opens its doors to everyone so they may find God’s tender mercy and forgiveness. "Every Christian is called to holiness." To quote Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby) "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints." Sounds like something you might want to take note of BacKaran. Again.... Hearsay, with nothing to back it up. With it...... and five dollars you could get a cup of coffee at Starbucks! Probably because you were not listening. By what I could see of your whole post....... This is the one thing you got right! 　 Peace

Good luck R.P. Before you came onboard, I've asked this same question time and time again, and as of yet, not one non-Catholic has been willing to answer Scripturally or historically. My guess is they did do some research, (and to their surprise) that led them directly to the Catholic Church, which as you and I both know, and history proves was...... "The only game in town" Pax tecum

Sorry Erza, nowhere in our discussion was the Eastern Orthodox Church mentioned.We were talking about the the Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics, remember. It was you that claimed these Catholics "Didn't go around preaching the Infallibilility of the Magisterium." Remember? And then I asked if you were 100% sure. So once again, If you are as sure as your statement suggests, show any official Catholic documentation that proves that the Maronite, Ukrainian,and Chaldean Catholic Rites are not in full Communion with the Pope. Now if you cannot, are you willing to admit you were in error? Now as for the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, I am fully aware of the most tragic division within Christianity, the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church. However, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are separate for the moment, what unites us is still far greater than what divides us, and there are abundant reasons for optimism regarding reconciliation in the future. Over the last several decades, there has been a marked lessening of tensions and overcoming of long-standing hostilities. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox. It is again becoming possible to envision a time when the two communions will be united and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, fulfill their duty in bringing about Christ’s solemn desire and command "that they may be one" (John 17:11). 　 Peace

Lol!!! Are you 100% sure about that Erza? I suggest you doing a bit of research to see if these Catholic rites are in full Communion with the Pope. After you do, come back and I'll put a band-aid on that owie for ya........ Ouch! Well, you'll have to excuse me, for I don't recall you posting any of these supposed errors. Care to post a couple of what you would consider "biggy's" out of this list of twelve, so I could 'edge-u-cach" ya? Oh yeah Erza, The Roman Catholic Church? Care to rephrase that after doing your home work? Let me see-um. I will if you can prove them, I'd do it in a heart beat. And if you can't,, and when I do show your errors, will "you" acknowledge them? Like starting with your opening statement. Uh Huh.... something your finding out first hand! Right? 　 Peace