http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3305743/posts?page=81#81
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3305743/posts?page=63#63
Your Pope and his cadre will lead catholics right into the chrislam movement with catholics like you praising his ecumenism.
I did question the Scriptures but the reason you accept them as Scripture. Mark and Luke were not written by apostles, why should they be considered Scripture? Hebrews does not claim to be written by Paul, why should it be considered Scripture? The canonical status of Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation was disputed in the early church. Why should we accept them now? The canonical status of the Deuterocanonical/Apocrahphal books were also disputed in the early church. On what basis do we accept or reject them? On what basis do we reject the claims of the Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphal books to be Scripture?
I have an answer to these questions. I accept those books accepted by the Catholic Church because the bishops of the church are the rightful pastors established be Jesus Christ. On what grounds do you answer these questions? A response of "I know what is Scripture because I know what is Scripture" is not rational. Nor is "God tells us what is Scripture" without answering by what means has God done so.
By the way, I have noticed your tendency to avoid responding to the points that I have made and your attempts to redirect the discussion to other areas. Clearly this is an indication of the weakness of your position.