Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Petronski
The hidden web cam was off that night so what “proof” can there be?

But the purpose of the quote was that if Catholic Bishops accuse(that word again) a sitting Pope of the most vile crimes, accusations not beyond the realm of possibility, why is someone an anti-Catholic bigot or similar, if they list those same accusations? Or if I do from a Catholic source?
Were those Bishops liars, perjurers, bearing false witness?
All serious sins, or was it simply calling the kettle, etc.?

But as the other poster demanded sources and hard evidence or I be deemed a liar, yet offered not one, not one source or evidence what does that tell you? I'm still waiting for proof of the statements made, some source beyond opinion.

Here's an example:
“First, the Pope accused of this was Stephen VI, not Stephen VII.”

But they are listed as one and the same in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

So which one has proof? Who's lying? The poster or the ‘pedia?

Yeah, I want proof, but in all the replies so far to me I've not seen any, just opinions, name calling, and unsourced statements.

119 posted on 10/15/2008 6:52:12 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: count-your-change
The hidden web cam was off that night so what “proof” can there be?

You must be kidding. You can't prove any historical event without video?

120 posted on 10/15/2008 7:05:20 PM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

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