Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
Yes, the elect were chosen from before time. And throughout, Paul tells us that the elect are those who first come to Christ, who have received forgiveness, who are part of the community, etc.. Nothing about eternal glory. Although it is assumed that the Christian will persevere - Paul certainly wants to exhort us to do just that - there is no guarantee that the individual will REMAIN. Paul tells us this in Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and 1 Corinthians in very explicit terms!
As to the "book of life", it appears that names can be blotted out. That is what Scriptures say.
I see that as working backwards to repair an untenable position. If God predestines the elect, whether He looks at their merits or not, then that simply leaves the other group left.
God works the other way around "first". God desires all men to be saved. Thus, He "starts" with saving every man without viewing merit. However, after viewing WHO will reject and refuse His graces (viewing the demerits), God reprobates those people, leaving the predestined to be saved and fulfill God's desire. He does this WITHOUT forcing the individual to accept Him. That would be WORSE than hell.
God has no need to look through the crystal ball at demerits. He decided to whom He was going to give saving grace at the beginning. He already knew "generally" what was going to happen to all those not receiving saving grace. It was over right then, without doing a sin by sin comparison based on the crystal ball.
Yes, He decided to save all men "initially". God does not reprobate anyone without seeing their evil. Can you point me to any Scriptures that tell us otherwise? That would make God a liar, FK.
We disagree on whether God is a colossal failure.
It is your opinion that God is a failure because He allows men to choose to be evil. That is your paradigm that cannot understand that God would condescend to mankind, although Jesus Christ did nothing BUT condescend...
John 12:48 : There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
That seems to prove my point, not yours. The Judge gives sentence to the one who rejects Christ, not arbitrarily chosen people. The Judge doesn't already give judgment "before" the rejection. This is another example of God seeing demerits FIRST.
This must mean that God desires all the reprobate to not be saved. We know THAT because God always had within His full power the ability to save them. Yet He chose not to.
That means nothing of the sort. It means that God is just and if man desires it enough, He will give them what they desire. This is what God's wrath is - to leave man in their perverted desires, if that is what they want despite revelation.
Regards
Good to hear and thanks. Yes, I am a glutton for punishment, so here I am!
Regards
Considering my responses to you, how could you think that I thought you were "subjectively certain" about your salvation? Time and time again, I reminded you about people who fell away, showed you verses that see the Christian lose his inheritance, tell you that you do not know WHO God has elected for heaven, told you that there are no individual "elect to eternal glory" verses, told you that we don't know if we will persevere, discussed how WE can fall away since we don't know our own future, etc.....
Why on earth would I bring up all of this if I thought you were ONLY "subjectively certain"? CATHOLICS are subjectively certain! But we don't consider ourselves the "elect to eternal glory" at this point with such certainty as you, because it IS subjective!
No, I have never gotten that idea from a Calvin, I'm sorry to say. Frumanchu has told me a first, and I have posted to Calvinists on this subject numerous times...
Regards
***Wonderful. All Catholic beliefs. There is hope for you as long as you continue believing such Catholic teachings.***
These are all CHRISTIAN beliefs, and as such, are universal (catholic). The Roman Catholic Church adds to these beliefs things that I will never subscribe to.
I believe that you and I are closer than either one of us thought, also.
No, there are two wills. There is the will of man and there is the will of God. Man is a slave to sin doing his will-what he wants to do. Then there is the will of God where man follows after the things that are of God.
People who are bound for hell are those who are perishing doing their own will. God must shine in our hearts and create us into new creatures to follow His will.
Perhaps my pea brain misunderstands this,but I don’t see any love in God creating someone without any remote possibility for Salvation.
That's because you are not viewing God in the correct soteriology. Man was not created for God's love. Man was created for God's glory. When man glorifies God, he glorifies all the pure characteristics of God; love, joy, peace, etc.
The only way man can understand what God has provided is to know what he has lost. There has to be a measurement. It gives us compassion to earnestly pray for others and teaches us understanding that, if not for the grace of God, we would be like the most vilest offender. What's more, it makes us dependent on God because we are fully aware that God at any time can withdraw His hand. Although He promises never to do this, it is presumptuous to assume that He would not reprove us in this fashion.
By definition of God, God will be in hell as He is in heaven simply because He is everywhere. So it is difficult to accuse God of just throwing someone into the pit and walking away. He will be there just as He will be with the elect in heaven.
That has been precisely my point, j. You are subjectively certain of your salvation just as I am (though I suspect the means of establishing that certainty may differ between us). Because as Calvinists FK and I believe that salvation is evidence of election and that God will preserve believers in their faith unto full and final salvation, we then deduce that we are therefore numbered among the elect and will be fully and finally saved.
Again, our assurance of election is the logical conclusion drawn from our assurance of salvation.
I am quite honestly truly surprised that you have never once heard such a thing from a Calvinist. Taking you at your word that you have discussed such things with many Calvinists here, it appears we as a group aren't doing a very good job of presenting a defense and explanation of our doctrines. Perhaps I shall devote more time to posting in the Religion Forum again alongside my fellow Calvinists :)
Well said.
I believe that God will extend His salvific Hand to each human being until their last breath. I do not believe in God Who would create some (most) to perish and some (few) to be saved.
It seems hollow that God would care if some "chosen" fall away and intentionally create multitudes with the sole purpose and reason for them to roast in hell's fire for all eternity.
I have asked this question before, brother. They will tell you that Judas somehow obeyed God's will (predestination), which makes Judas a sacrificial lamb in some respects, a loyal servant, a necessary evil, that was assigned to Judas from "before the foundation of the world" to fulfill the God's plan for His own glory! This question is akin to the question "Does God create evil?" to which the Reformed have no choice but to say "yes."
Don't you know the Reformed god creates people destined to hell for His own pleasure and glory?
LOL! Coming from a Calvinist, this is a joke, right?
Either man's will is independent and responsible for out damnation (orthodox belief), or God's will is in everything, including forcing those who reject God to reject God (Reformed view). Either God is the CAUSE of everything and all or He is not. If He is the CAUSE of EVERYTHING AND ALL then HE IS THE CAUSE OF EVIL AND SIN because evil and sin exist.
The orthodox belief is that God did not create evil and sin. Sin and evil are NOT A CREATION. They "exist" as a state of rejection of God. They have no existence from God, nor do they have any "life" from God.
Which is is Halrey?
You make no sense!
Either God "Wills" Love for all or God is not Love.
I see a demonac side to Cavinism that is not Christian at all!
Dear Brother,God is Love!
There is a subtle difference between "man's" will and "free" will. Here is an excellent passage by Calvin's on the two. It is rather long but these people sure like to write.
You shall also find that I have taught that which this troublecoast setteth down here to put out the whole light: to wit, that our will is the cause or means to come to salvation. Wherefore it needeth not to allege that Abraham believed God, and that it was imputed unto him for righteousness. For in very truth it must needs be that a man must accept the grace of God. But the question is of knowing what is the first cause. And this is the power of the holy ghost, through which we are drawn to the obedience of God, according as he hath chosen and adopted us for his children before the foundation of the world. Now in this behalf this vile dog showeth sufficiently enough, that he makes no accompt [account] of the holy scripture, the which as much as lies in him, he would abolish or tread under his feet. For in going about to declare how Abraham was saved by his will, he saith that this was of that will which God had put in man creating him after his own image. Whereby he utterly abolisheth the whole grace of the holy ghost: and goeth beyond not only the Papists, but also some of the Painims [pagan, heathen], in the impiety. For the Papists keep such a measure in magnifying their Free will, that they confess, being corrupted and depraved, we can do nothing, if God through his spirit and supernatural grace, do not help, drive and direct us. But concerning the holy scripture, it showeth us, that we shall always be rebels against God, until that he shall have changed and renewed us. And lo why Moyses said to the people <052904>Deuteronomy 29:4, that God had not yet given them an understanding heart, and seeing eyes. And therefore to the end he might be obeyed, he saith, that he would give them a new heart, taking away that stony heart, <243101>Jeremiah 31: <261103>Ezekiel 11:37: and Saint Paul in the second to the Philippians (<503813>Philippians 2:13) say that God giveth both to will and to perform. And in the first of Saint John (<430113>John 1:13) it is said, that they which believe, are not of the will of flesh nor blood: but renewed of god. And Saint Luke speaking of the woman, showeth well, how all are drawn unto faith: to wit, that God openeth the heart, to the end his word may be understood. Now it is certain that these things are not spoken of the common order of nature. And yet this villain dareth allege that which Saint Paul saith in the third Chapter to Titus, that God hath saved us not according to our works, but according to his mercy: to infer upon that, that we have Free will, but not so constant. Now when Saint Paul speaketh in the third to the Romans (<450310>Romans 3:10-18) of the will of man, such as it is by nature, he deciphereth plainly enough, that there is nothing but perversity and malice: as also in the eighth chapter (<450807>Romans 8:7) he saith, that all our thoughts are enmities to God. Mark then how this agreeth with that which this troublecoast chatteth, saying that God renewed us, after that we have consented to his calling. And he is not ashamed to allege to the same purpose the fifth to the Ephesians, where he speaketh thereof as of the fables of Marlin: but contrariwise he saith in the same epistle: (<490201>Ephesians 2:1, 2) When you were dead in your sins, and the captives of Satan, and that ye were the children of wrath as others, God hath quickened you, etc. And in Ephesians 1, he showeth well, that faith and regeneration proceeded from no other thing, than Free election. And indeed, it must needs be that God accomplish in us that which he hath spoken by his prophet Esaie, in the sixty-fifth chapter, (<236501>Isaiah 65:1) I appeared unto them, which sought me not. And lo why John Baptist, reproving the rudeness and hardness of his disciples, saith in the third chapter of Saint John, (<430327>John 3:27) No man can receive anything, unless it be given him from heaven. And which is worst, this troubler is not ashamed also to bring this place, that God giveth both to will and to perform, to make us believe, that the grace of God followeth our good will: howsoever it be that Saint Paul in that place without leaving anything to men, would attribute the whole praise of our salvation to God: as he saith in the first chapter (<500106>Philippians 1:6) that he which hath begun the good work of salvation, will finish it. Wherein it must be, that he make the grace of god to come after the tail of Free will.
Now afterwards this troublecoast taketh great pain to prove, that there is a will in man, as though any man had ever denied it. But he should show, that that will is Free to choose good and evil. Now how proveth he it? By the seventh chapter to the Romans, saying that this place cannot be wrested. But herein men may easily judge, how his mind is forward and perverse, seeing that Saint Paul (<450701>Romans 7) declareth there, although his will labored and strived to good, inasmuch as it was regenerated by the spirit of God, yet oftentimes he went but hopping upon one foot. He allegeth a little after the seventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he speaketh of a man’s will, that hath a daughter to marry. Here is good stuff to found Free will. Concerning the thirtieth of Deuteronomy, where it is said: I set before you this day life and death, choose you: Saint Paul in the tenth to the Romans (<451019>Romans 10:19) giveth a sufficient solution: that is, that Moyses presupposeth that God putteth his word in the heart. And lo why it is said, that this ought to be laid to the gospel. Concerning that of Ecclesiasticus which notwithstanding is Apocrypha, there he speaketh but of the outward doctrine, but the inward grace is a thing apart and by itself, That which is so ill favoredly jumbled together by this troublecoast, that under the shadow that Jesus Christ calleth all those that are heavy laden, he concludeth that grace is given equally to all. But he maketh no reckoning that Jesus Christ after he had preached more excellently than all creatures, saith by and by, that his father must draw them to believe in him. - An Answer to Certain Slander by John Calvin
I guess I'm astonished to think people want to believe that God finds pleasure in creating "rag dolls" for hell as you once told me.-;)
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
We believe, as Peter and Paul did, that we have the hope of salvation, depending on our staying the course.
We do not have this Gnostic indwelling of certainty; we understand that Scripture does not support certainty, rather hope.
As mentioned in previous posts, there appears to be many heresies posited by the Protestant Reformation that are not only enthusiastically refuted by the Church Fathers, but are as equally enthustiastically championed by the descendents of the Reformers.
It is almost as if the Reformed conceive of men as marching in a line through the jungle and having the leopard of the Holy Spirit drop upon them at random, savage their souls into line with the elect, and then frogmarch them at right angles away from hell into Heaven.
Only, the frogmarching does not appear to be exactly what some of the Reformed folks believe; some of them appear to believe that the Jesus limo pulls up alongside and a large sunglassed bodyguard pulls an Uzi and forces them inside.
The rest of humanity is predestined for the Reformed god’s glory to everlasting hellfire. But it’s not His fault. Really. It’s their own fault that they were made to go to hell. Really. And that’s not the God of All who predestined everything who should be responsible. It should be the creatures that were created to do something and when they do it, they’re condemned to everlasting hellfire.
I want to sell bridges to these people.
Did Jesus know ahead of time that Judas would betray him, or was he surprised that a man he walked with and talked with would turn against him?
Did Judas surprise God? Did God have to scramble around trying to pick up the pieces? Did God have to yell down to Jesus, “Hey, I guess it’s plan B?”
Unless all is predestined, this is the scenario you are left with.
Those are Catholic Christian beliefs, since Catholic and Christian were synonymous before the Reformation. Roman Catholic beliefs? You mean like priests getting married? What are "Roman", as opposed to Catholic beliefs that you will "never subscribe to"?
Regards
Praying to saints, worshipping Mary, celebacy as a requirement for priesthood, transubstantiation, the Pope, you know, the usual things :>)
Well, again, this is news to me, and I hope it is true.
Because as Calvinists FK and I believe that salvation is evidence of election and that God will preserve believers in their faith unto full and final salvation, we then deduce that we are therefore numbered among the elect and will be fully and finally saved.
Well, our definition of "the elect" are different. The Bible tells us that the elect are those called to the Church membership, the People of God. Now, while we remain as God's people, we are "subjectively certain" of our salvation. But we do not believe that God works against our free will. If we sin grievously and refuse to repent, our situation with Christ is worse than if we had never came to Him in the first place - says Jesus, Peter and Paul. I do not make the automatic jump from being called into the Church to eternal glory, because I realize that I can change for the worse despite God's graces - by my own free will. While it is unlikely, and becomes more unlikely as I grow in virtue (if I grow in virtue), I am still exhorted to persevere. ME. The New Creation in Christ now has an opportunity to enter heaven - one that I couldn't before being reborn of the Spirit in Baptism. God is not asked to persevere. He will ALWAYS grant grace to me. My future is unknown to me, thus, I do not presume - I must beware that I do not falter.
Again, our assurance of election is the logical conclusion drawn from our assurance of salvation.
Again, I believe this is an incorrect conclusion of improperly defining the biblical meaning of "elect". It does not refer to the individual's assurance of eternal glory, but predestination and election to the community. Being part of the flock does not mean we will REMAIN part of the flock, since we can remove ourselves by unrepented serious sins. We cannot have a relationship with Christ in that situation.
I am quite honestly truly surprised that you have never once heard such a thing from a Calvinist. Taking you at your word that you have discussed such things with many Calvinists here, it appears we as a group aren't doing a very good job of presenting a defense and explanation of our doctrines. Perhaps I shall devote more time to posting in the Religion Forum again alongside my fellow Calvinists :)
No, I have not gotten the idea that you are "merely" subjectively saved and that salvation can be lost by our own doing. I have not heard that, but rather, that once 'saved', we cannot fall away, unless we "never were saved with to begin with". While others have admitted that a Calvinist can fall away, it is considered rare and always someone else. The SELF cannot fall away, so it appeared. Anyway, my conversations of the past can be researched, and you would find that my responses are attempting to refute the "I am saved for heaven because I am of the elect".
Don't feel bad. Not many people understand Catholicism, either. I do not know whether this is an active attempt by Protestant pastors to keep their "flock" at home or whether people hear theology from bad sources (such as former Catholics who invariably know very little about their former faith), or whether it is just people do not really care what Catholics believe and are satisfied with the cliches. Anyway, that is why I am here.
Regards
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.