Yes, that would be the same William Webster who was exposed as an outright liar in a recent thread, isn't it? He had edited the writings of a Catholic saint to make it appear that the saint was denying the Assumption of Mary, even though the saint was asserting the Assumption. That's an intellectual gold mine, you've got there.
Essentially, on a previous post ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1773583/posts ), Webster quoted St. Epiphanius as saying, essentially, "we don't know what happened to Mary when she died"; whereas what St. Epiphanius said was, "we don't know what happened to Mary when she died, but we do know she was assumed into Heaven."
Likewise, he asserted St. Jerome denied the Assumption of Mary, when, in fact, St. Jerome credited her appearance to him as preventing him from believing the Hebrew's misstatements about the meaning of "a virgin shall give birth."
The very title of the article stated that two popes condemned the doctrine of the assumption of Mary as heretical, when in fact, they only called a 5th-century, fictional book about Mary a heresy. Of course, Webster claimed that this book was the source of the doctrine of the assumption, which was either a falsified hostorical presumption, or a blatant lie.
Yes, that William Webster, what a valuable tool of Satan he was.
(Was this William Webster the same con man who wrote "Consequences of Trade to the Wealth and Strength of any Nation, by a Draper of London," and then wrote "The Draper Confuted" under a different pseudonym? The ethics and intellectual honesty of such a man is astounding!)
As true today as it was three days ago.