Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He who holds the keys to the kingdom - the Catholic practice of granting indulgences
The Tablet ^ | February 18, 2006 | Robert Mickens

Posted on 02/17/2006 9:35:32 AM PST by NYer

For many modern Catholics, the practice of granting indulgences to hasten the path through purgatory to heaven is thought to have been ended by Vatican II. Under Benedict XVI there has been a revival – and it is one which tells us much about papal authority

“When a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs.” Every good Protestant who is old enough to have grandchildren will recognise these words. They are attributed to a sixteenth-century German friar, Johann Tetzel OP, who actually sold indulgences to help finance the construction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. It was this abuse that ignited the rage of Martin Luther, who in 1517 helped launch the Protestant Reformation.

Many Catholics today, at least those on the progressive wing of the Church, probably never give indulgences a second thought. The notion that by securing an indulgence – quite simply the removal of the temporal punishment of sins that have already been forgiven by the Church – one can secure a fast track to heaven seems curiously outmoded to many. It is an aspect of Catholic life that belongs, if not to the Middle Ages, to the pre-Vatican II era.

But now there is clear evidence that indulgences are very much back at the heart of Catholic life as seen from the Vatican. In his first 10 months of office, Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly – and surprisingly – granted a plenary indulgence in connection with three major ecclesial events: last year’s World Youth Day, the fortieth anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican II, and the recent World Day of the Sick.

So what should we make of such recommendations? Has the Church taken a step backwards? Or have indulgences continued to exist, but been quietly ignored? In fact it can be argued that Benedict’s interest in indulgences tells us a great deal about how he perceives his own authority and that of the Church.

In classic Catholic teaching, forged between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, the practice reflects the belief that pastors can “set the individual free from the vestiges of sin by applying to him or her the merits of Christ and the saints” – what has been called the “treasury of the Church”. Basically, an indulgence – either partial or plenary (full) – allows one to reduce his or her “time” in purgatory or apply this grace to someone else who is already deceased. In order to obtain a plenary indulgence one must perform the prescribed task, plus go to sacramental confession, receive Eucharistic Communion, and pray for the Pope’s intentions.

The Council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to 1562, not only outlawed the selling of indulgences but also roundly condemned Martin Luther as well: “The Church… condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” This same formula was re-stated, verbatim, by Pope Paul VI in 1967, some two years after the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which – significantly – had chosen not to issue condemnations or anathemas.

The practice of indulgences was never really addressed at Vatican II. And yet, some four decades later, a good number of Catholics – and many Protestants, too – continue to hold rather firmly but equally erroneously to the notion that the Council did away with indulgences – or, at least, severely altered them. It was actually Pope Paul who oversaw the “revision” of the practice. But the formula that Paul devised was only a partial reform that satisfied neither the Neo-Tridentines (such as the schismatic Lefebvrists) nor the so-called “progressives” more sympathetic to Luther’s position.

Shortly after his election as Bishop of Rome in 1963 Paul VI formed a commission to revise the practice of indulgences. The findings, in a text called the Positio, were sent to the all the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences in June 1965. The main thrust of the paper was to link the indulgence with the interior attitude of the believer and his or her action rather than with a place (such as a shrine or church) or an object (perhaps a holy medal).

Further, the numerical calculation of partial indulgences (for example, reducing a fixed number of days or years from purgatory) was to be banned and inflation of indulgences in general curtailed. This means that only one plenary indulgence could now be gained per day.

When the bishops arrived in Rome later in the autumn of 1965 for the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council the conference presidents were asked to state their views on the Positio, but when they did there was outrage among some. The feisty Antiochan Patriarch of the Melchites, Maximos IV, urged that indulgences be suppressed outright, saying they were “not only without theological foundation but the cause of innumerable grave abuses which (had) inflicted irreparable evils on the Church”.

Then the German bishops added fuel to the fire. The Archbishop of Munich – Cardinal Dopfner – stated unabashedly: “The idea of a ‘treasury’ that the Church ‘possesses’ leads all too easily to a materialistic or quasi-commercial conception of what is obtained by indulgences.” He recommended that the Positio be scrapped and that a group of international theologians (Karl Rahner was one such he had in mind) be selected to re-write it.

The Pope formed his new commission and in early 1967 issued the Apostolic Constitution, Indulgentiarum Doctrina – which looked similar to the original Positio. The new document said that a believer could gain the indulgence only by fulfilling three obligations: by doing the prescribed work, by having the proper disposition (attitude of the heart) while doing the work, and by acknowledging the authority of the Pope in the process.

Indulgentiarum Doctrina was in effect a restatement of the medieval Catholic doctrine of indulgences, with more personalistic language common in the theology of the initial post-Conciliar period. (This remains a criticism of the neo-Tridentines today.) And yet the anathema of Trent is still there. Partial indulgences were no longer calculated by days and years and the number of plenary indulgences was reduced. Yet critics from the other end of the spectrum are perhaps still most disturbed that indulgence theology likens divine justice to human justice and its need for reparation.

More than a change in practice, the early post-Conciliar period saw a change in attitude. But all that began to change still further with the pontificate of Pope John Paul II and his heavy emphasis on traditional devotional practices.

In his 1998 bull for the Holy Year – Incarnationis Mysterium – the Polish Pope made the indulgence a “constitutive part” of the Church’s Jubilee celebrations, which bewildered some Protestants, for in the same document the Pope also sought to give an ecumenical flavour to the event. The World Alliance of Reform Churches’ (WARC) representative on the ecumenical commission for the Jubilee – Waldensian Pastor Salvatore Ricciardi – was one of the more ardent protesters. The bull “seems wholly untouched by the events which shattered western Christianity in the sixteenth century”, Ricciardi wrote in October 1998, and then withdrew from the commission.

Receiving the indulgence “is not automatic, but depends on our turning away from sin and our conversion to God”, Pope John Paul said at a general audience in September 1999. “The paternal love of God does not exclude chastisement, even though this always should be understood in the context of a merciful justice which re-establishes the order violated,” he said.

The late Pope also issued a new manual that added a fourth way people could “gain” indulgences: by giving public witness of their faith by their frequent participation in the sacraments or by proclaiming the faith through word or example to someone who does not believe.

“If you die immediately after receiving a plenary indulgence, you go directly to heaven,” said Fr Ivan Fucek SJ at the Vatican press conference that unveiled the book.

Then after the Holy Year the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity invited representatives from WARC and the Lutheran World Federation to a two-day discussion on indulgences. Participants expressed satisfaction with the meeting and a Vatican official said there would be follow-up sessions. But to this date, there have been none.

Since then Pope Benedict has indicated that he will make indulgences much more visible than his immediate post-Conciliar predecessors. There are good reasons for this. Theologically, the Pope seems to be emphasising the medieval doctrine – codified at Trent – of the “economy of salvation” and the necessity of the Church. And politically he is making direct appeal to those Catholics – both those still in communion with Rome and those like the Lefebvrists that are in schism – who feel the practice of indulgences and the doctrine of Purgatory have been almost irreparably minimised.

But by revising the granting of the indulgence, Pope Benedict is actually doing nothing new at all. But the words of Paul VI in his 1967 document might offer a further clue to the new Pope’s motives: “We ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the Church. Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of Blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven. To them the Saviour himself entrusted the task of feeding his flock and ruling his Church.”


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Theology
KEYWORDS: indulgence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-294 next last
To: magisterium; kerryusama04; whispering out loud; conservonator
Notice, in all of these passages, the women wait till dark to run off and buy the spices necessary for the annointing. Why? Because, as observant Jews, they would not have been able to travel to get them during the Sabbath and, surrounded by other observant Jews, the spices would have been impossible to buy in any case, the stores all being closed

You are making my case for me and I don't believe you know that...yet.

In the year of the crucifixion, Passover (Nisan 14), fell on Wednesday and Jesus was our Passover This means he was buried at sundown on Wednesday evening which would be the cusp between the 14th (Passover) and the 15th (1st Sabbath of Unleavened Bread). Notice the mention in John 19:31 that this Sabbath was a High Holy Day....not your normal weekly Sabbath. So now we know that 2 separate Sabbaths have to be dealt with here in scripture.

The 1st Sabbath would then have been from the 15th (Nisan) Wednesday night to Thursday night. This would have been the first day in the tomb according to scripture and it was a "Special Sabbath". Jesus would have died Wednesday afternoon as the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple, and placed in the tomb shortly before the sundown beginning of this Special Sabbath.

You are correct in stating that the women wait until after dark, as observant Jews, to purchase the spices. The thing that I believe is not clear to you is that the time frame would then be Thursday evening as we notice in Mark 16:1 they wait until the first Sabbath is past because....after they then buy the spices on Thursday evening they go home and prepare them....but they rest on the Sabbath according to the commandment. Which Sabbath are they now resting on? It cannot be the first one because they waited until after that one was over before buying the spices. They then prepare the spices (Thursday evening/Friday evening) and then they rest again for the weekly Sabbath.

The Day the women bought and prepared the spices (Thursday evening/Friday evening) would have been the 2nd full day in the tomb for our Lord. And the Saturday Sabbath would then be the 3rd full day in the tomb for our him and at sundown the time of his resurrection....72 hours after his entombment.

Again, Matthew 28:1 is the only scripture that designates the time of the resurrection and as you now see from scripture, it is after a 72 hour entombment....not a 36 hour affair that the modern Church observes.

241 posted on 02/20/2006 4:10:39 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Not too deep into the second century, worship on the Sabbath among Jewish Christians not already affiliated with the universal Church had spiralled to extinction.

Why do you think the Church then had to tell the folks not to Judaize in 364 A.D.? See canon XXIX.

242 posted on 02/20/2006 4:30:10 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: whispering out loud
please go back and reread my post, this was human forgiveness, not Divine forgiveness.

I read your post. Where in Scripture is this distinction made? You are just making this stuff up to avoid the clear and simple language of John.

Show me, using scripture, why anyone should believe what you are saying here.

243 posted on 02/20/2006 4:33:01 PM PST by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

When there is no supporting scripture it isn't slear and simple. No where in scripture does an apostle make use of his authority to forgive sins.


244 posted on 02/20/2006 4:39:31 PM PST by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
I appreciate your input. I have had catholic friends that provide a somewhat differing take on the Church's belief from how you explain it, but that's to be expected to some degree.

I researched Catholicism before choosing a church and I feel you guys have got much to be proud. I chose not to become catholic because I feel some of the catholic Church's doctrine or theology is somewhat flawed as I explained before. It doesn't make catholics less Christian just as protestants have some flawed theology as well.

God bless.
245 posted on 02/20/2006 4:45:02 PM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Here's a smattering of what they say about hell, note that the first nine wrote before 200 AD:

I know that you put much credence into what the fathers of your early Church wrote. Your faith is commendable and I am honored to be able to debate you.

I am not denying that there is a fiery end to the wicked; Scripture is very clear in that regard. In Revelation 20:14 we are told of the 2nd death....that would be a fiery end and "eternal" separation from God.

My contention is that the Greek words (Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus) used in scripture do not describe that firey torment as you say they do. Indeed, the only one of those words connected to fire would be Gehenna....and as I have pointed out in previous posts....it is simply a garbage dump where bodies of criminals and indigents were disposed of.

The early fathers could have been talking about the lake of fire in Revelation....don't you think?

246 posted on 02/20/2006 4:48:40 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: gscc
When there is no supporting scripture it isn't slear and simple.

Except here - in James “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” James 5:14-15 Here, James makes it clear that certain people in the Church – not just anyone – have special powers. The prayer offered in faith by the priests (men) resulted in the forgiveness of sins. If these men did not have special powers, why did James not ask anyone to pray over the sick?

247 posted on 02/20/2006 7:05:06 PM PST by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Who does the forgiving - the Elders pray and who forgives?


248 posted on 02/20/2006 7:15:42 PM PST by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: gscc
Who does the forgiving - the Elders pray and who forgives?

Well, let's see what Scripture says on this one.

Jesus gave his apostles power and authority to reconcile us to the Father. They received Jesus’ own power to forgive sins when he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:22–23).

Paul notes that "all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation. . . . So, we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us" (2 Cor. 5:18–20). Through confession to a priest, God’s minister, we have our sins forgiven, and we receive grace to help us resist future temptations.

249 posted on 02/21/2006 2:52:03 AM PST by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

Thank you for your reply. I respect that you did some research on things before deciding. I would say this, though, that the early Church's practices mirror modern Catholicism much more closely than an interested or curious outsider might think. A deliberate, critical reading of the early Fathers (available in nearly any library) will demonstrate this. Perhaps you could consider doing that at some point, and then reevaluate your understanding of Catholicism.

God bless!


250 posted on 02/21/2006 8:09:27 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

The Ebionites, a Gnostic sect, had redeveloped certain judaized elements a part of their creed in the third century. One of these elements was sabbatarianism. While they were never really all that influential, their ideas had sufficiently spread that they needed to be addressed. Their errors are addressed in the canons you cite here.

In addressing the question put to me by whispering out loud, I felt it sufficient to note the original judaizers - the Jewish converts in and around Palestine who did not formally belong to the wider, universal Church, had, in fact, disappeared from history in the second Century. That was all I had to say, because, lacking continuity to this day, they could not possibly be the True Church that I felt was being alleged. Over two millenia, there have been several movements intent on resurrecting Sabbatarianism (including, of course, several variants of the mindset today), but, to me, I did not think that mattered relative to the point she was making. They don't have a direct link to the Apostolic Era, so they, too, can be discounted as the True Church.


251 posted on 02/21/2006 8:25:32 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

First, before I can respond further, you say that Nisan 14 fell on a Wednesday in the year that Christ was crucified. What is your source for that? I can content, with equal conviction, that the paschal full moon occured on what we call "Friday" twice during the procuratorship of Pilate, once on 30 AD and the other in 33 AD. Both of these can be made to fit the timeframe of what is implied in Luke 3 and assumptions about the length of Christ's ministry thereafter. Personally, I prefer 33 AD as most likely being right. I have developed my own time scheme for that using, among other things, the prophecy in Daniel 9. I think it fits well.

But I cannot even address your claims about Nisan 14 on a Wednesday until I see what year you're talking about (32?) and why you arrived at it.

Aside from that, as you can probably tell by now, I think the early voice of the Church, by way of the Fathers, is very compelling evidence for the beliefs and mindset of the Christians of those times. I certainly will never be accused of "chronological prejudice" in favor of "modern thinking" for its own sake! Anyway, the Church, as I've already noted on this thread, had already developed the idea of the Lord's Day being Sunday within the lifetimes of the Apostles. One would think they would be in ample position to correct such a notion were it false. They did not, and *every* subsequent generation of orthodox Christianity was in lock-step with the mind of the first generation of Christians in this matter. I suspect I know the reason why. ;-)


252 posted on 02/21/2006 8:40:34 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: gscc

magisterium: So, evidently, Christ empowers the Apostles to forgive sins in John 20:23 to no purpose?

gscc: "I have not taken the time to read through you cut and pastes, however, I did not say that. He obviously equipped the Apostles to spread the Gospel as He had charged them. I deny that these gift are extant today."

Well, in response to what I said above, you said: "we cannot demonstrate the actuality of whether or not an individual's sin has actually been forgiven by the Father. Your take on John 20:23 is not supported by Scripture" That, in effect, *is* saying that He so empowered these men to no purpose. If it is useless, it has no purpose. You say the power is useless, as demonstrated by the NT not showing any instance where the power was employed. If that is not what you intended, then why did you bring up your point this way?

It doesn't matter whether or not Scripture mentions this power to forgive sins that was granted to the Apostles by Jesus. The Bible clearly states He gave the power to the Apostles. He either does things for a reason or He doesn't. If He did do this for a reason, then one can infer that the power was exercised by them, irrespective of its specific mention in Scripture or lack thereof. As a matter of fact, though, 1John 1:9 *does* talk about such confession and forgiveness, though rather cryptically. No matter. His hearers knew what was meant, as did the whole of the Church contemporaneous to, and immediately after, his words in 1John, as there is ample verification of the practice by the Church Fathers. Much of that comes from a timeframe where lifetimes still overlapped the Apostolic Era.

If you deny the gift exists today, then what is the justification for its withdrawal? Some gifts, such as the raising of the dead, speaking in tongues, and the like, are no longer needed, as the Church has long-since established itself in the world solidly, and does not need to impress itself in the minds of the surrounding pagans in such fashion anymore. But sin still exists within the vineyard, no? Therefore, the sacramental means that Christ established to remove it and restore grace (confession and absolution of sins) will remain with the Church till the end of time.


253 posted on 02/21/2006 9:12:26 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Well, here you say that there *is* an eternal punishment, but, in post 160, you said: "In all cases these folks who are in "Hell" will be raised at the last day and they will then be judged. In no case is Hell described in the Bible as a place of eternal fire and torment. It is simply a temporary abode of the dead."

Given that, it seems reasonable to suppose that all of your argument concerning the background to Gehenna, Hades and Tartarus is meant to lead one to the conclusion that you come to in the passage from 160 I just quoted. A rereading of the post connections tfrom that post to this still leads me to this conclusion.

And I thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post here. In things that matter, especially religious conviction, it is easy to misinterpret that conviction for personal hostility. I am glad to see that you do not fall into such thinking, and I can assure you that the conviction that you display for your position is not misinterpreted by me as a personal attack, as well.


254 posted on 02/21/2006 9:26:11 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: whispering out loud

You don't see these things (and others) in Scripture because you do not *want* to see them. They're there, nonetheless, as I and several other Catholics on this thread have amply demonstrated. In support of this, I have also made use of the Fathers of the Church (many of whom lived in overlapping lifetimes with the Apostles) to demonstrate that the Catholic understanding of this or that issue coincides with the early Church's. This you dismiss out-of-hand as "not being Scripture."

Well, if you won't accept Scriptural argument from us, and you won't accept near-contemporaneous testimony by *Christians* of the early Church, then I'm afraid your questions will remain unanswered to your satisfaction.

Meanwhile, we do *not* say that you are not a Christian, and therfore we are totally exclusivist. What we say is tha the Catholic Church, does, in fact, have the *fullness* of God's revelation, and that, objectively, therfore everyone *should* belong to it. But we also say - emphatically - that God takes into account the state of mind and background of those who resist the message of the Church. To the extent that they truly cannot understand its teachings, or have a background that so prejudices them against those teachings that it is effectively impossible that they will give them credence, God will consider their "invincible ignorance" when He judges them. How He does this when, presumably, the person in question has never availed himself of sacramental grace beyond baptism (if even that)is something of a mystery to us. But, if God is sovereign, we concede that He is the Author of the Sacraments, but He is not *bound* by them. Therefore, non-Catholics *can* be saved, but in a rather vague, tenuous way that has far less capability for "guarantees" than the moral assurance of salvation that a Catholic has after a valid, sacramental confession and absolution of sins.


255 posted on 02/21/2006 9:58:47 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

I still beg to differ with you, In your very posted scripture, before the passage says, "He is risen", it does state that the "Mary's" were already there. If they were there, and in all three of the other accounts it was clear that they did not arrive until the dawn of Sunday, the only conclusion that I can come to is that, your interpretation on the testament in Matt, is incorrect, and Christ arose on Sunday morning, and not Saturday night.


256 posted on 02/21/2006 2:18:07 PM PST by whispering out loud (the bible is either 100% true, or in it's very nature it is 100% a lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: twidle
Do RC's believe the New Testament?

Well, twidle. Here is a challenge for you. And it won't hurt, I promise. Find the celebration time at your local Catholic church. Go there three times. Twice during the week. Once on a Sunday. Bring your bible. The priest or deacon or lecturn will announce the OT reading, and the NT readings. Then, the priest will read from the gospels. See if it doesn't conform, in the main, exactly with your text. See if what he says after, the homily, doesnt' conform to your interpretation as well. You have now experienced a substantial part of the Catholic Mass. Next: the command Jesus gave: Do this in memory of me. Stay for that part, too. V's wife.

257 posted on 02/21/2006 3:22:48 PM PST by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

so well put. V's wife.


258 posted on 02/21/2006 3:25:35 PM PST by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Well, here you say that there *is* an eternal punishment, but, in post 160, you said: "In all cases these folks who are in "Hell" will be raised at the last day and they will then be judged. In no case is Hell described in the Bible as a place of eternal fire and torment. It is simply a temporary abode of the dead."

Not quite....I said a fiery "end" in the lake of fire and "eternal" separation from God. If you would like to refer to that as eternal punishment, so be it. The Lake of Fire is not Hades, Gehenna, or Tartarus....the Greek words translated Hell in most Bibles. It is the final end to all sin and Godlessness.

Every time you see the word "Hell" in scripture know that they are referring either to #1, the grave; #2, a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem; or #3, a special place in which God is currently restraining sinning Angels. The idea that Hell is a place of eternal fiery torment is not scriptural.

259 posted on 02/21/2006 3:27:51 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: whispering out loud
the only conclusion that I can come to is that, your interpretation on the testament in Matt, is incorrect, and Christ arose on Sunday morning, and not Saturday night.

I'm sorry....I try not to beat dead horses...but please review again Matthew 28. Like I said, this is the only place in scripture that gives you a time line on the resurrection. All other references to the women coming to the tomb do nottell you when the Saviour arose. Matthew 28 does!

Notice verse six. The Angel says "He is not here. He is risen! Come, see the place where the Lord lay". If this is not past tense to you...what is it.

Jesus says 72 hours in the tomb; [Matthew 12:40]. Jesus is buried at sundown; [Matthew 27:57, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31-42]. A burial at sunset Friday afternoon and a resurrection at sunrise Sunday morning does not meet these scriptural requirements. Instead of 72 hours...you end up with 36. Instead of a Sabbath sundown resurrection....you end up with a "Venerable Day of the Sun" resurrection.

When you are spoon fed unscriptural tradition like this all of your life it is very hard to see the truth.

260 posted on 02/21/2006 4:02:08 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-294 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson