Replies

On the first point of: Apostles to Rome. It is a glossing over of the time period of the councils and relies on a silent argument of Papal authority. Again this is an argument that has its own time and place, but to silently assume it in a catechism is clumsy at best. The great pity here is that this is single greatest issue standing between unification of east and west. So, to skip even a mention of it in a brief catechism, gives rise to my claim of "talking points" over "catechism" (i.e. no genuine interest in proclaiming a universal truth and submitting it to challenge {importantly: from within} vs. inculcating a party line).

As to the Historical time line, it is worse than childlike. I'll grab a few and let me know, if you prefer some others: 1. Episcopalian King Henry VIII 1534 England

Clearly the good Fr Cogan is American and a bit out of touch with the difference between ECUSA (erm TEC now) and the rest of the Anglican Communion (not to mention the RC doctrine of consantiguity at the time).

On a side note, please don't make me search out the RC Priest in the Barney costume or his "stand up" bishop to dispel the tit-for-tat that this line normally begins. The Magisterium of Rome is with His Holiness Benedict XVI. The Canon of St Vincent best describes the failed via-media of Anglicanism

Next, the martyrdom of St Alban and the councils of Arles (314), and Ariminum (359) are not fictional.

2. To put the Presbyterian as spawning from John Knox without any mention of Calvinist thought is as dumb as making Henry VIII some religious reformer starting a church.

3. Similarly, but perhaps more egregious due to martyrs, is to put the Baptists under John Smith with no mention of the Anabaptists.

4. John Wesley (an Anglican to his dieing breath), started a prayer group, not a church.

5. 7th day Adventists and Christian Scientists hardly qualify as "Protestant churches" as they were in no way seeking to reform the corrupt visible church.