I think we are in agreement, particularly when it comes to overt, incessant anti-Catholic media bias.  Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, is the target of media slander.  Echoing what you have said elsewhere, it is sad that other orthodox Christians can't even acknowledge that, but rather cling to Triumphalism, perhaps themselves influenced by the MSM spin.

Their whole structure is aimed at preventing the addition or deletion of scripture. They have never added to or deleted any scripture .

Brandbenj5952,

And you still do not understand papal infallibility.  Papal infallibility doesn't mean that "new" revelations from God are being added by the Church. 

To give you an example, the Church will argue, correctly, that papal infallibility is nothing new revealed.  Rather, that through Scripture, God revealed to humans the infallibility of the Pope.  Same with ALL Doctrines of the Church, they are all based on Scripture, not on new revelations. 

You attack that which is obvious you do not understand, it is as simple as that. 

You still have not bothered to go into the links given by the author of this forum. 

And as lotr pointed out, you just contradicted yourself.  First you claim that no sinner can be infallible.  Now you claim the oppossite. 

Yes, just like the writers of the Scripture were moved by Holy Spirit, so is the Pope moved by the Holy Spirit.  However, more than moved, what the Holy Spirit does is PREVENT erroneous teachings, doctrines, faith from being taught by the Church. 

but I am glad we are in agreement, sinners who are fallible can be inspired, moved by the Holy Spirit, thus making their teachings infallible. 

I wonder if you are honest enough to take back your previous assertion that a sinners teachings, writings are always fallible. 

Your statements will be in italics.  Mine [will be bracketed].

A. Deuteronomy 4:2

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

That biblical passage, and the passage from Revelation quoted below, have been taken as teaching Sola Scriptura since the earliest Reformation days. The Second Helvetic Confession explicitly appeals to those two passages:

And in this Holy Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has all things fully expounded which belong to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God; and in this respect it is expressly commanded of God that nothing be either put to or taken from the same (Deut. iv. 2; Rev. xxii. 18, 19). (Chapter I. — “Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God”; emphasis added)

(The original edition of the King James Version, published in A.D. 1611, has a marginal note at Deuteronomy 4:2 cross-referencing Revelation 22:18, and vice-versa.)

Despite such an august history, the citation of Deuteronomy 4:2 as a teaching of “The Bible Alone” begs the question: it assumes that “the commands of the Lord” come only through the Bible: that, however, is what must be demonstrated.

[You got the cart before the horse here.  The commands are verified as being from the Lord first, then are added to the canon.  Therefore, the prophet or apostle must be verified before the writing is accepted.  And the Bible has those safety locks written within it.

Do these statements assume the Canon is still open then?

BTW, why are you using the 1611 KJV?]

B. Isaiah 8:20

To the law and the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

The necessary context, provided by the preceding verse, reveals that this passage is referring to a very specific practice: “When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” (Isaiah 8:19) As we can now see, this passage condemns occult practices — and that is all it does.

[Correct.  All that is necessary is not an argument to authority, but rather the "how" as to the inquiry of God.]

Moreover, assuming that “the law” and “the testimony” refers to writings is begging the question.

[Would you actually say that to a Jew?] 

Most probably, “the law” does indeed refer to the Torah, the Books of Moses, the first five books of the Old Testament. But, “the testimony” refers to the teachings of the prophets, and there is nothing in this passage that suggests that “the testimony” is only what has been written; and, many long years would pass before the writings of the prophets were regarded as Sacred Scripture.

[Yet the test of those very same prophets was placed according to Torah.]

B. Matthew 4:1-11

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

This passage is not appealed to as a teaching of Scripture Only because it contains any such precept — it obviously does not — but because of the Lord’s example. “Jesus responded to the temptations with three quotations from Scripture, and nothing else,” it is said; “therefore,” it is concluded, “only Scripture has authority.”

[Yet "every word that comes from the mouth of God" is both verifiable and stands or falls upon the authority of what has already been written.  Thus, there's no arbitrary leap to conclusion.  So, I don't see what this has to do with anything.  This relates to my previous statement.]

All three quotations, however, are from the Old Testament: when the Lord Jesus endured His temptation in the desert, the books of the New Testament would not even have been written yet for many years, let alone recognized as new parts of Sacred Scripture.

[Yet the NT also leans upon the authority of the Old.  So do Jesus' teachings.  The OT prophesies verify Christ's own authority.  Look at how much OT Paul relies on in Romans, or the amount of OT reference used in the book of Hebrews.]

At best, then, this passage may be taken as vindication of the divine authority of the Old Testament scriptures, but not to the exclusion of other authorities: it shows that Scripture is, indeed, a rule of faith, but not the only rule of faith. At worst, though, this passage establishes the Old Testament alone as the rule of faith — the logical conclusion that somehow escapes the notice of Protestants who appeal to the Lord’s example.

[This is because "other authorities" is in fact begging the question itself, is it not?]

D. John 5:39 [LOL, what happened to "C"?]

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life.... [1.]

or

Study diligently the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life.... [2.]

The Greek of this verse is ambiguous: it may be taken either as declarative (that is, as a statement of fact: “You do study the Scriptures”) or as imperative (that is, as a command: “Study the Scriptures”).

[No, the Greek is not ambiguous when you take in the wider context of Jesus' dialogue with the Pharisees, who were at the time the most studied scholars of the time.  The context shows how Jesus is showing the irony about how they are already so well studied, but miss the truth.  Thus, #1 is in the correct context.

Translation #2 must contend with verse16 and 47.  Also don't forget whenever Jesus chided the scribes and Pharisees with His "Have you not read. . ." questions.  Of course they read it already, and more tragic it is too.

Also if Jesus commanded the Pharisees to "study the scriptures" then they could simply reply, "We did that!"  The dialogue here is to their understanding of what they already studied.  Thus translation #1, and you're twisting.]    

Those who cite this verse as a teaching of Sola Scriptura take it in the imperative. No matter.

[So the wider context doesn't matter?  Well, not as long as you can cherry-pick to your advantage, correct?] 

For the Lord Jesus is referring to the Old Testament scriptures: if He was truly commanding his Jewish hearers — and us — to search the Scriptures, then it is the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews, the Christians’ Old Testament, that we must search. Again, Protestants fail to notice that this is the logical conclusion — a conclusion they would reject as much as any Catholic would.

[But only when first taken on your misappropriation of the verse and the mishandling of context as shown above.]

E. John 20:30-31

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Clearly, these verses do not teach that “this book” is the only source of what me must believe; they mean, rather, that we can believe because of what is written there.

[But at the very least, it is saying that it is the only source of what we must believe for salvation.  If any other institution teaches another salvation, then it can be summarily rejected on this very point.  See below.  Teaching another salvation denies the sovereign Lord who bought His own.] 

They do not prohibit other means of acquiring such knowledge.

[What other means?  How is this not begging the question?]

Moreover, these verses are restricted in two ways that preclude them from consideration as a mandate of the Bible Alone.

First, verse 30 specifically refers to “this book.” Centuries would go by before the New Testament scriptures were all assembled in a single compilation, so “this book” refers only to the Gospel of John.

[Correct.  However, the canon is not limited to a binding and a cover.  The early church fathers accepted a canon without everything being bound into one book.]  

Therefore, those who appeal to John 20:30-31 as a definition of the rule of faith must take the Gospel of John alone as their rule of faith — lest they be violating the very scripture they are quoting.

[You're flip-flopping on the definition of "faith" here.  Is this the faith for salvation that John is teaching, or the faith for the wider application of the Christian life, such as spiritual gifts, offices, and eschatology?]

Second, verse 31 specifically mentions the purpose of what is written: that we may believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God. Therefore, those who appeal to this passage as a mandate of Sola Scriptura must restrict their beliefs to nothing more than “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” — lest, again, they be violating this scripture to which they appeal.

[See above. "Christ" and "Son of God" are loaded terms.  Much like the word "faith."]

F. Acts 17:10-11

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

This passage seems to have recently become one of the more popular to be cited in support of Sola Scriptura: Protestant “ministries” and publications have even appeared with “Berean” in their name or title.

But the behavior of the Bereans is being contrasted with the behavior of the Thessalonians, so we must resort to the account of Paul’s stay in Thessalonica to provide the necessary context: “As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,’ he said” (Acts 17:2-3).

We can see, now, that Paul’s use of Scripture in his preaching at Thessalonica and Berea was very specific: he was explaining to the Jews how the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Where else would one look but in the Sacred Scriptures to see if Scriptural prophecies have been fulfilled? Indeed, there is no reason to think that the Berean Jews were doing anything more than merely verifying that St. Paul’s quotations from their Sacred Scriptures were genuine and accurate.

Sometimes it will be pointed out that the Bible says the Bereans were “more noble” than the Thessalonians — and that they were so because they “examined the Scriptures every day....”But this is reading into the text what isn’t there; for St. Paul had reasoned with the Thessalonians, too, from their Sacred Scriptures, and hadn’t convinced them: the Bereans, therefore, are “more noble” because they “received the message with great eagerness”, not because they were early practitioners of Sola Scriptura.

[This is not a Protestant reading into the text.  You yourself admitted the Thessalonians failed to pick up Paul's reasoning.  Strangely, you also omitted everything following "eagerness" in your commentary, despite the fact that you quoted the verse completely. 

The Berean nobility of character was twofold.  Not "this" or "that," as you are asserting, but rather "this" and "that."

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Thus, the foundation is the verification of what Paul said.  The verse explicitly states that while they did receive it gladly, they did not take his message at sheer face value.

Trust, but verify.]

Moreover — and once again — the Scriptures referred to here are the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews, the Christians’ Old Testament. Protestants fall short of the logical conclusion: if this passage teaches Scripture Only, then it teaches Old Testament Scripture Only.

[Yet NT scripture is founded upon and argued from OT scripture.  Not even the truth of Christ's authority is outside of OT scripture.  It all chains together and supports itself.]

G. Second Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Those who propose this passage as a biblical injunction of Scripture Only read it as if it says, not “All Scripture is God-breathed...” but “Only Scripture is God-breathed....”

[Nope.  Now you're reading into the verse on behalf of all Protestants.  Dirty pool old man.  That's called a strawman argument.  If you can argue the case, then don't change the verse to suit your imaginary weaker opponent.] 

But the passage neither says that nor means that: it says Scripture is “useful” for these purposes, not that Scripture is sufficient for them; nor does it say or imply that something else might not also be useful.

[Oh, but look how you also omitted the "All."  You changed "all" into "only" and then omitted it.  LOL!  Busted on a nasty cheat.  Shame on you!]

nor does it say or imply that something else might not also be useful.

[Begging the question again.  The word "might" doesn't confirm the truth of a thing.]

Sometimes, one who proposes these verses as a biblical teaching of Sola Scriptura will try to shift the focus from the beginning to the end: “St. Pauls says thoroughly equipped for every good work,” they note, “so nothing else is needed,” they say.

[No shifting necessary.  The conclusion for nothing else being needed is, "All scripture" which you omitted to build your thesis. 

Therefore, the question is to what qualifies as scripture.  And scripture has a test for that.  Either you're proposing more scripture, or it's settled on "All scripture" and nothing else.  

If this is not the case, then. . .not all Scripture is God-breathed, or useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, or training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 

And if that's true, then God failed the Bible and something else must step in to "fix it up." Heck, we might as well put the Bible on a shelf and not bother with it at all then.] 

But this, too, makes the passage say what it doesn’t, for it is “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” that makes “the man of God” thoroughly equipped for every good work — not the Bible.

[That's the boldest cherry-pick and liberalization of scripture I have ever seen.]

What’s more, and once again, the context makes clear that the Scripture St. Paul means is the Jewish Bible, the Christians’ Old Testament. Addressing St. Timothy in the immediately preceding verse, the Apostle reminds him, “from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). The only Scriptures that St. Timothy could have known from childhood were the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews — a clear deduction that the Protestants who appeal to this passage simply do not make.

[That doesn't render the NT invalid though, because it would cancel Jesus out completely.  See above for more on that.  You painted youself into a corner with this statement.  Either what is written in the NT is true or it isn't.  The OT is the foundation for the New.  In the Old, the New is concealed.  In the New, the Old revealed.   In the Old, the New is contained, and in the New, the Old is explained.]  

H. Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

As mentioned above, Deuteronomy 4:2, this passage has been cited for centuries as teaching Scripture Only. In these verses, however, “this book” means the Book of Revelation, not the Holy Bible in its entirety: when Revelation was written, many centuries would pass before all twenty-seven books of the New Testament scriptures were gathered as one collection of divinely-inspired writings together with the books of the Jewish Scriptures.

[Then pay close attention to the part written to the seven churches.  If they are all part of the same infallible Church, then why are they under threat from God Himself? 

Also, why is added doctrine an issue according to the Nicolaitans, of whom God explicitly hates?  Was this not a sect within the church?

Oh yeah, almost forgot.  John is rebuked for bowing to an angel.  John could have made the excuse that he was praying through the angel to God, or seeking the angel as a mediator, but the angel rebukes the action comprehensively and in plain terms otherwise.]    

Moreover, the warning is that we must not add anything to “the words” of this book, nor take “words away” from this book. This injunction, then, is not a warning against adding to, or detracting from, the teachings presented in Revelation: they are a warning against tampering with the text of Revelation — sort of a “copyright notice,” worded in the strongest possible terms because of the nature of the work.

[Yet what is the message of Revelation?  This is the ending prophesy about the end of the world itself.  It is also the end of the canon.  Why is that not taken into consideration?] 

Even if someone would like to interpret “words” as a figurative way of referring to doctrine, still “this book” refers only to Revelation, not to the whole Bible.

[See above.]

Other Verses Cited

Others biblical verses are sometimes quoted, too, as teachings of Sola Scriptura. Our pattern of analysis has already been established, so these passages will be addressed only very briefly.

I. Deuteronomy 12:32

See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Appealing to this verse begs the question (by assuming that God’s commands come only through the Holy Bible).

[This applies to what I wrote above.]

J. Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Appealing to these verses begs the question (by assuming that “every word of God” is contained in the Bible).

[It also begs the question as to which word of God outside the Bible can be faithfully accepted or rejected.]

K. Ecclesiastes 12:11-12

The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails — given by one Shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.

Appealing to these verses begs the question. Also, the reference is, at best, to the Jewish Scriptures — and even that is assuming that “collected sayings” means “written collected sayings,” which is by no means required by the context.

[See above.  Does this mean that this verse denies the Chief Shepherd of the NT?  The argument is to what is wise or not.  Wisdom comes from God, thus the source must be verified as to whether it is God or not who is speaking.  The Bible has safety features to help us discern this.]

L. Luke 16:31

He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

This verse refers, at best, to the Jewish Scriptures only. But there is nothing here, really, that excludes actually listening to Jewish oral tradition as well, so appealing to this verse begs the question, too.

[This is absolutely wrong.  Because it also refers to the resurrection foretold by Christ.  Here, you are accusing Jesus Himself of "begging the question."  I highly doubt any good Catholic would ever even dare step so far out of bounds as was done here.] 

M. First Corinthians 4:6

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”

Written where?

[The writings of the Law, the prophets, and apostles.  That's where. The authority and attributes of an apostle are also given according to scripture.  Even Paul had to contend with people who accused him of being a false apostle. 

See also verses 7-9 and 14-16 of the same chapter.  The time of the apostles was limited to what Paul stated about themselves, speaking of their own death without any successors.  Also the "not many Fathers" was both referring to those Paul was referring to and not begging the question of any more fathers in the future that he knew of.   Because if there were, wouldn't there be a prophesy of one within the canon?]    

If this verse refers Sacred Scripture, it refers to Old Testament Scripture only — and would deny divinely-established authority even to those of St. Paul’s writings that came after First Corinthians. But the meaning of this verse has been disputed for many centuries, even among Protestants.

[Stop shooting the authority of the apostles for the sake of your own argument, please.]

N. First Thessalonians 5:21

Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Appealing to this verse as a teaching of the Bible Alone is not merely begging the question: it is grasping at straws. But some Protestants do cite this verse as a Scripture-Only mandate.

[Yet many Catholics simply fail to "test everything."  So what's your point. . .other than the just-so statement, "it is grasping at straws."  Why?  The failure to test everything is what turns someone into a dupe for just about any authority, vision, prophesy, myth, or legend that comes down the track.]

O. Second Thessalonians 1:8

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Appealing to this verse begs the question (by assuming that the “gospel of our Lord Jesus” is confined to the Holy Bible).

[If it isn't then it would be adding to the gospel.  And if adding to the gospel is necessary, then John and the Bible are fallible.]

P. Second Peter 2:1-3

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Appealing to this verse, like 2 Thessalonians 1:8, as a teaching of the Bible Alone is the sheerest grasping at straws.

[And yet you fail to expand your assertion to anything more than a "just so" statement. 

I even double-checked your web page to see what I was missing.  What else you got?  For if you deny the sovereign Lord as both sovereign and as the only redeemer who bought you, then you fall into this category.]

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

"I can be an infallible dancer according to the style of dance, but we are talking the very nature and holy standard of one God."

Okay, good you do understand the distinction. But we (actually you and others) were discussing the "nature" of the Pope, who is only claimed to be infallible in matters relating to the laws and canons of the RCC. This, IMO, is the "kind of" infallibility under discussion. I doubt that this "kind of" infallibility extends (or is meant to) to economic advice, or what side goes best with borscht. And I doubt if the man can boogie down, lol.

"I bought a new car."

"What kind of car is it?"

This construction does not carry with it an implication that it is not really a car, does it?

And, while "kind of" and "sort of" can be used interchangeably, their meaning can vary from "in a matter resembling" to "type of." And the usage is what defines the meaning. You know, context. I am not, sort of, using the urbanized, kind of, umm, juvenile usage, ya know? The original phrase "kind of infallibility" clearly (to me, at least) didn't mean "similar to infallibility," but "type of infallibility."

I don't feel this distinction "slices" the concept of infallibility. Unless you're arguing that if one is infallible in any respect, one must be infallible in everything. Which would make your auto mechanics "infallible" in Biblical interpretation. 

Whew! I don't think I've ever used the word "infallible" that many times in one paragraph! But all this is really just a side-issue about grammar, versus the main discussion. Which, btw, I'm no part of. Not well-versed enough. Yeah, I know, I should be.

Thirty

Mustang,

I hope you aren't seriously expecting an answer.  I have debated enough Protestants to know that they ignore all questions that poke holes into their arguments. 

I have also debated enough Protestants to know that most of them lack on key ingredient to their Christianity, love and understanding.  It doesn't mean accepting, which they don't seem to get. 

I have debated enough Protestants to get them with...

1) You can't claim we are all infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and then claim that the Pope is not infallible.  The latter part of the statement contradicts the first one, that we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit.   

2) If the Pope is fallible, then we are not all inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus contradicting this Protestant teaching. 

3)  By Protestants teachings, since we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Pope IS infallible-inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

Now the question is, do they believe then that only Protestants are inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Only saying this and believing this can they reconcile their beliefs. 

I know they see the error on this, but they are just so worried about being proved wrong. 

OK, so then you acknowledge the alternative story, that a "unified, authoritative, church," centuries after the death of the last Apostle, must have somehow been involved?  What about all those folks called scribes between the original manuscripts and the earliest extant texts that we have?  What about the translators from the original Hebrew, Greek and Latin?  Men, all sinners, were involved, and God ordained it to be so.

Brad,

Since you are a Bible Alone Christian (I'm still waiting for *that passage, btw), I'm sure you have an explanation for this one.  Paul is clearly indicating that grace can be rejected, and thus, it is possible to lose one's salvation:

Philippians 2:12b-13 (RSV) .
. . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at
work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

In case you are interested, here's what John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about the passage while on his journey to Catholicism:

In truth, the two doctrines of the sovereign and overruling power of
Divine grace, and man's power of resistance, need not at all interfere
with each other. They lie in different provinces, and are (as it were)
incommensurables. Thus St. Paul evidently accounted them; else he could
not have introduced the text in question with the exhortation, Work out
or accomplish your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God
which worketh or acts in you. So far was he from thinking man's
distinct working inconsistent with God's continual aiding, that he
assigns the knowledge of the latter as an encouragement to the former .
. . It is quite certain that a modern Predestinarian never could have
written such a sentence [as Philippians 2:12-13].

 

 

the MSM loves to divide Christians - being satan's minions of course - it only makes sense - and anti-RCC "news" reports do stir up the anti-RCC fundies - the MSM knows this - so it's a nice two-fer for them...

but the RCC is also one of the most powerful global forces against Satan - making them a number MSM 1 target...

as a protestant fundie I'm very glad to have the RCC fighting PC BS the way they do - even down to stem cell research

even though I disagree with RCC doctrine, protestant RCC bashing is not still very bright in my opinion - and I think it's the same deal with Jews and Muslims - Abrahamic follwers should band together as much as possible...