Nah, witchhunts are passe. They went out of vogue in the 17th century when the Protestants stopped hanging witches in Salem, Mass.

Same here. It is amazing how many people need an ambulance or the fire dept when I am trying to assemble a cogent answer to your assertions.

If you are referring to me as "Holy," you are wasting your time, cos I ain't holy. Just trying to get there. As far as being kilted, not at present, but frequently! As far as my assertions being groundless, well ...

Ah, but I AM loyal to the Right One, and to his Vicar on Earth, Pope John Paul II.

Not a "war," just a theological discussion among people of good will. As for Unholy War: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism I have read it, along with Hitler's Pope and several other books unfavorable to the Church. While they make some valid points, they do not succeed in destroying the Church's integrity as an institution, only in sullying the names of some of the popes involved. Popes being human, they make mistakes. That may be why the current Holy Father frequents the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a week. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the Holy Father is anything but a man, subject to the weaknesses of all men. Being human, the authors of these works also make mistakes. As I have stated previously, there ain't no such thang as a perfectly reliable historical work.

Nice try. But saying that it is so is not the same as proving that it is so. If sola scriptura is indeed historically verifiable, we would expect to see the early liturgical life of the Church suffused with the teaching. In fact, when examining the writings of the early Church Fathers, one sees that the concept was alien to their thought and life. Show me concrete examples (more than one or two) of writings of the early Church Fathers that demonstrate the prevalence of sola scriptura. Incidentally, isolated staements from selected Fathers such as St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine or St.Basil, if taken out of context, can lend the appearance of support of this fallacy. When taken in totality, such an argument is seen to be fallacious.

Indeed, because of the theological and epistemological investigations of the Church. Of course, when the early Protestants removed some of the Canon of the Old Testament because it conflicted with their theology, that wasn't exactly playing by Hoyle was it?

The Protestant Reformation hardly belonged to Luther. Don't forget, there was Calvin and Zwingli, too, along with a host of lesser known personages. As to what Luther's opinion of James' epistle was, I have no idea. But if the early Church Fathers didn't believe in it, and it isn't supported biblically (at least I have seen no convincing proof of it), it had to arise with the Protestants who espouse it.

How else does one interpret a meeting of Christians in which bread is broken and the Word is proclaimed? I guess it could have been a dinner party, but until I have hard evidence showing me such (recovered invitation or RSVP ), I am going to maintain that it is an example of the celebration of the Eucharist. And, by the way, nothing that transpires here is likely to move me to tears.

Actually, it was Fr. Martin. And I am not likely to forget what I have learned in my 20+ years of catechesis and study of theology. I do use my Bible and concordance, but I do not limit myself to that, also studying the writings of the Church Fathers and the saints.

You mean the Deuterocanonicals? They are accepted, of course, else you wouldn't have asked the question.

The Jews could never agree on the Canon among themselves. It wasn't until a convocation of rabbis in 90AD in Javneh, called to figure out what to do with this heretical Christian cult that they decided on a set Canon. They pronounced several books, which included the Gospels, by the way, as unfit to be Scripture. They also eliminated Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and portions of the books of Daniel and Esther. These were accepted by the Christians of the day as Canon. Not all Jews agreed with this. Jews from Ethiopia to this day accept the Canon of the Old Testament as is accepted by the Catholic Church.

Christ never "recognized" the deuterocanonicals because they were a part of everyday life. And they were quoted by the Apostles. See Hebrews 11:35. Show me anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament where there is a story of someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. That is ONLY found in 2 Maccabees 7:1,5-9. Only there.

Indeed. Kind of makes it hard to live by the scripture alone, doesn't it? Sort of makes sense that a Church with teaching authority was founded by Christ to lead his people to Heaven.

Of course, the soul is immortal.

Hell is the state of total seperation from God and all His goodness, with all the suffering and misery of the soul that implies. It is forever, and there is no escape from it after death.

Contempt? I have shown nothing but respect for your views, with a little tongue in cheek humor thrown in for good measure to try to keep the discussion from getting TOO serious. Knowing that you feel nothing but contempt for my views (as a professing Catholic) leads me to wonder about the efficacy of debating the virtues of the Faith with you.