Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Rome Can Only Appreciate, Rather than Prove the Immaculate Conception
Fallibility ^ | May 1, 2013 | Michael Taylor

Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7

Why Rome Can Only Appreciate, Rather than Prove the Immaculate Conception

Should we believe something because we think it is true, or should we think something is true because we first believe?  For example, if you believe that extra-terrestrials have visited the earth, then you are likely to believe in UFO sightings and  alien abduction stories, and conspiracy theories about government coverups as confirmation of what you already believe.  This doesn’t mean that you believe that every UFO sighting or abduction story is real.  Nor does this mean that you buy into every conspiracy theory out there.  But if you are already inclined to believe in ETs (perhaps you or someone you trust has had a “close encounter” of some kind), then you are likely to view the “evidence” in a way that confirms what you already believe.

On the other hand, you may be skeptical, even if in principle you are open to the idea of extra-terrestrial life.  Perhaps you view the vastness of the universe as probability for the existence of intelligent life on another planet, but doubt that anyone has developed the technology that would enable interstellar travel.  In this case, UFO sightings, abduction stories and conspiracy theories probably won’t persuade you to change your mind, since there may be plausible alternative explanations for all of these alleged phenomena.

The question, then, is on what basis should you believe the claim that extra-terrestrials have visited planet Earth?  The only rational answer is to believe on the basis of credible evidence.  As Carl Sagan said it, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

The same can be said of the claims of Christianity.  For example, take the claim “He is risen.”   This is an extraordinary claim, and no reasonable person ought to accept it without extraordinary proof.  That doesn’t mean we have to put our finger into the holes in Jesus’ hands in order to warrant belief.  But it does mean we need more than hearsay.  Providentially, we do have extraordinary evidence to back up this claim.  An empty tomb that was under guard, hundreds of eyewitnesses, an otherwise improbable and inexplicable growth of Christianity, and no alternative explanation that has any plausibility whatsoever.  In short, all the evidence points inescapably to one conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again.

But what about the claim that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without sin?  This too is an extraordinary claim and so it too requires extraordinary proof.   But when we examine Scripture, we see no evidence that anyone thought Mary was conceived without sin nor any evidence that she was exempted from Adam’s curse.   While there are traditions about her sanctity from the womb and throughout her life, the church is mostly silent on the issue of her conception until the middle ages, and even then most theologians either didn’t see how it was possible for Mary to be conceived without sin or they outright denied it.  The list of those opposed to the doctrine reads like a Who’s Who of the medieval church:  Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Anselm of Canterbury, just to name a few.

But then in the early 1300s, two English Franciscans (William of Ware and Duns Scotus) came up with a way to overcome the objections that the doctrine was a “superstition” (so Bernard) or that it could not be reconciled with the uniqueness of Christ’s redemption (so Aquinas).  William used the argument from conveniens (Latin for “convenience”), which used the formula, potuit, decuit, fecit:  God could do it, it is fitting that He would do it, therefore He did do it.  Since Mary’s Immaculate Conception was both possible for God and fitting (on the grounds of the medieval supposition that never too much can be said of Mary), then it follows that God must have preserved Mary from contracting original sin, and so her conception was “immaculate” (stainless).

Scotus, for his part, theorized how God was able to preserve Mary from Original Sin without denying her need for redemption.  The eternal God, who sees all things as present,  must have applied the merits of the redemption to Mary before the redemption actually took place.  Thus Mary’s redemption was by exemption.  Instead of grace taking away the power of original sin after contracting it,  she was graced by not contracting it in the first place.

Without commenting on the merits (or demerits) of such arguments, take a step back and notice what is going on.  Despite the fact that Scripture and Tradition are at best silent on the issue, there is an undeniable desire on the part of many in the medieval church to believe in Mary's immaculate conception anyway.  How does this differ from the UFO enthusiast looking for reasons to justify his belief in ETs?  ETs could exist given the vastness of the universe, it is fitting that ETs would have visited Earth by now, given the age of the universe, therefore they did!  

Surely it is within God’s power to preserve someone from original sin; no one disputes this.  In fact, this would have been an extremely efficient way of redeeming the entire human race–not just Mary!  But to date, there is no evidence that God has preserved anyone from original sin, not even Mary. (Jesus being God cannot contract sin, and so was not “preserved” from it.)

Unless of course you count alleged supernatural events such as apparitions as evidence.  William of Ware put a lot of stock in the legend that Bernard of Clairvaux, soon after his death, appeared to a lay brother in a white garment with one small stain: his denial of the Immaculate Conception.   St. Bridget of Sweden (d. 1373) claimed that Mary appeared to her and personally confirmed the Immaculate Conception.  In 1830, just twenty-four years before the formal declaration of the Immaculate Conception as a must-believe dogma, St. Catherine Labouré claimed to have had a vision of Mary as the Immaculate Conception standing on the world with rays of light emanating from her hands to illuminate the earth.  The vision was framed with the words, “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”  This image is on the popular miraculous medal available at most Catholic kitsch stores.

Just as the medieval imagination was fertile ground for believing in visions as confirmation of doctrines, so the Romanticism of the late nineteenth century paved the way for sentiment to triumph over reason.  On December 8, 1854, after having consulted with 603 bishops (56 of whom dissented), Pope Pius IX issued the bull, Ineffabilis Deus, which formally (and infallibly) defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and put the Catholic Church ® on a dogmatic  path of no return.  Not surprisingly, shortly after (1862) the definition a major Marian apparition took place that had the effect of confirming the doctrine in  pious imagination.  Near Lourdes in France, a girl of 14 named Bernadette Soubirous claimed that Mary appeared to her and said, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”  The miraculous healings that followed could only serve to confirm the already existing belief.

The parallel to belief in ETs  is instructive.  Since the dawn of the space age and the realization that the stars are within our grasp, there has been a corresponding increase in  UFO sightings, abduction stories and the like.  Movies, science fiction novels, T.V.,  and the occasional Roswell documentary have collectively helped to solidify belief in ETs for those who already believe in them and predispose others to the idea that there just might be some intelligent life “out there” after all.  When all of these phenomena are combined with a speculative theory that can explain how these phenomena might be possible, the result is fairly analogous to what has happened in Roman Catholicism with respect to Mary.  The major difference, of course, is that no one is required to believe in ETs.  But Roman Catholics are required to believe in the Immaculate Conception.  (And the theory that Mary was abducted into Heaven, also known as the dogma of the Assumption.)

When the Protestant reformers began to jettison longstanding beliefs and practices that were not in accord with scripture, they did so with the conviction that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that only scripture could count as evidence that is extraordinary since only it is divinely inspired.   Tradition, reason and even experience could also be brought to bear as confirmation for what is already found in scripture. But they could not substitute for a clear foundation in scripture. Jesus and the apostles relied on scripture for that kind of extraordinary evidence, Protestants think it only prudent to do the same.  And so the process for accepting or rejecting a dogma of the church is rather straightforward.  Justify the belief before you believe in it, and don’t ask anyone to believe in it until you have.

Roman Catholicism has reversed this process any number of times throughout its history, especially since the Reformation,  and has gone on to dogmatize beliefs that have little to no basis in scripture and sometimes little to no basis in tradition.  Instead, Rome takes into consideration a hodgepodge of mutually reinforcing streams of “evidence,” such as liturgical practice, pious devotion, private revelations, the polling of bishops and speculative arguments about how “fitting” the doctrine is.  And if this isn’t enough, the matter can be settled definitively by an infallible papal decree, which means the doctrine must be held to be true simply by virtue of the fact that a pope intends to define the belief as a revealed dogma.

All too often in Roman Catholicism, the tail has wagged the dog–or dogma in this case.  Too often Rome has formally defined longstanding beliefs before it has produced good evidence for those beliefs.  Would it not be more prudent to first examine whether there was sufficient proof for those beliefs to begin with?

Having studied historical and systematic theology in a Pontifical school of theology, I have witnessed this dog-wagging process over and over again:  Begin first with the supposition that a belief is true (or at least accept the fact that you’re stuck with it), and then work backwards to find out how the belief came about in the first place and how it coheres with the rest of the content of the faith.  If you think the doctrine is defensible, all the better.  If you don’t, then try to salvage the doctrine by coming up with a more palatable interpretation.

For instance, Catholic theologian, Richard P. McBrien, says this of the Immaculate Conception:


The dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was exempt in a unique and exceptional way from the normal and the usual impact of sin, or, more positively, that she was given a greater degree of grace (i.e, God was more intensely present to her than to others) in view of her role as the “God-bearer.”  So profound is her union with God in grace, in anticipation of her maternal function and in virtue of the redemptive grace of Christ, that she alone remains faithful to God’s will throughout her entire life.  She is truly redeemed, but in an exceptional and unique manner.  The Immaculate Conception shows that God can be, and is utterly gracious toward us, not by reason of our merits but by reason of divine love and mercy alone (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, [San Francisco: Harper, 1994],  1101)

McBrien is widely regarded by conservative Catholics as a dissenter, and we can see why.  Although he claims to affirm the doctrine, he does so in a way that fails to affirm the traditional propositions of exemption from original sin and life long sinlessness.   Instead, he interprets the dogma as an example of God’s graciousness in redemption apart from our works, as if the original intention behind the doctrine were to affirm a more or less Protestant principle of sola gratia.

For McBrien, the Immaculate Conception really tells us more about God than it does about Mary.  In this way, the otherwise disagreeable aspects of the dogma are rendered innocuous and so, in good conscience, he can go about his merry way satisfied in the knowledge that the Immaculate Conception  is really “so much more” than a mere affirmation of Mary’s sinlessness.

I’d say this is fairly representative of how theology is done in many liberal Roman Catholic seminaries and theology schools.  Virtually no importance is given to the idea of testing whether or not the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are true.  Some of my systematic theology classes reminded me of the music appreciation class I had as an undergraduate: Sit back, listen and “appreciate” how the doctrines of the church play together like a symphony.   When examined, I was not asked if I thought a belief was true or not; nor was I required to back up my beliefs with any kind of evidence.  That would have been too much like the scholasticism of a bygone era.   Instead, I was asked to name my favorite systematic theologians and articulate how they had integrated the dogmas of the church into their various systems.

In retrospect, I can see why Dogma Appreciation 101 was all my systematic theology courses could ever be.  Once a doctrine is formally defined by Rome, then the truth of the matter is moot.  Why argue against a doctrine if you’re stuck with it?  And why defend a doctrine that needs no defending?  The only recourse is to “appreciate” it.  If you happen to agree with the doctrine, all the better.  If you do not, then try to make it say something more to your liking.

Once you are a member of a denomination that believes itself to be incapable of teaching error in matters of faith or morals, then theology can only ever be an exercise in appreciating infallible truths.  There still may be room for “synthetic” efforts to articulate the dogmas of the church in an ever more fresh and meaningful way.  But there can be no room for any true “analytic” efforts to evaluate whether or not the dogmas of the church are still worth believing in light of the evidence, or as is more often the case, the lack thereof.

Live long and prosper.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: mary; salvation; sin; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-225 next last
To: Carpe Cerevisi

Raised in the Church. Come from a Catholic family. Love my church. Love attending Mass. Agree with about 90% of Catholic teachings. I’m a volunteer at my church. 4th degree member of the Knight of Columbus. There over a billion Catholics in the world today. We don’t all think exactly the same way. Not all of us mindlessly marching in goose step with every whim of the Vatican hierarchy.


21 posted on 03/26/2015 12:43:16 PM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fruser1; RnMomof7
>>Here’s a nice apologetic on this subject:<<

That contains false information about the translation of the Greek kecharitomene. In no way can the Greek be translated to include "full of grace" which has been shown multiple times on these threads. Only two people have ever been called "full of grace" and they were Jesus and Stephen.

22 posted on 03/26/2015 12:47:45 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
I am a loyal and faithful Catholic who practices my faith.

I don't doubt your sincerity.

And you pointed to an issue which is irritating and true. The Church’s tendency to make up things which are not based on fact. The circumstances surrounding the birth of Mary are not mentioned in the Bible. So why make up things we don’t know?

You've fallen into the "sola Scriptura" trap, perhaps without realizing it. Listen to the premise behind your statement: "if it isn't in the Bible, it can't be true or worthy of belief"... which is an unbiblical idea, since the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura" ANYWHERE. It's a tradition of sinful, fallible men (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) who were pursuing the "anything but Rome" mindset. Don't be fooled into granting a false premise.

This perpetual virgin stuff is equally annoying. The Bible mentions that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception of Jesus (Luke), but it stops there. It doesn’t go any further than that.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but: belief in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not optional; it's "de fide"--obligatory for belief for all faithful Catholics. See the Catechism, 496-498,510.

Beyond this, see above, re: the ridiculous error of "sola Scriptura".

The Bible does say Mary was married to Joseph and that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

The Bible also says "not to call any man on earth your father" (cf. Matthew 23:9), but it has St. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) reminding an entire local church (the Corinthians) that they "do not have many fathers. For I [Paul] became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel". Some parts of the Bible are easy to misunderstand (especially if the reader is "sure" that he isn't misunderstanding!), which the unstable and ignorant distort and twist, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). This is why we, as Catholics, cannot simply run off with every private interpretation we see or think (whether from ourselves, or from Catholic or Protestant friends); we need an infallible guide to tell us what these things do NOT mean.

It is therefore safe to assume that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

You'd be going against the teaching of every last Father of the Church (all of whom lived far closer to the actual events than you and I do), if you assume that. Rather, it's safe to assume that, after carrying the King of Kings in her womb, the Blessed Virgin would have no desire to settle for mere human intercourse. Do some research (on some orthodox Catholic sites); the resources are plenty.

The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply and Mary and Joseph did just that.

That's a general vocation--not an all-inclusive one, as Jesus Himself makes clear: "[...]there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Matthew 9:12). St. Paul also makes this clear (though he says that celibacy is voluntary and good, but not a requirement): see almost all of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7).

Do you see how some Protestant (and other private ideas) can seem plausible for a while, but can be proven false, upon a bit of closer examination? The Church is here to guide us, not to make us miserable; just as guardrails are there to protect us, not to restrict our driving freedoms.


23 posted on 03/26/2015 12:51:23 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

Thank you very much for not doubting my sincerity. If forced to choose between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia, I will choose sola scriptura. The Church has made mistakes. The Bible never has.


24 posted on 03/26/2015 12:56:17 PM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

The man is listening to God rather than to the Catholic Church. Why do you fear that?


25 posted on 03/26/2015 1:00:29 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

I pray God continues to enlighten your mind and spirit.


26 posted on 03/26/2015 1:02:14 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

I am sorry that was your experience. The defining document is the Catechism, and it speaks clearly.

It is certainly your choice to believe as you wish, but if the priest said what he said, he was in error.

St. Bede (d. 735) refutes both of the things the priest said, at Mark 3: 31-36.

The Bible, as written, was in several different original languages. It wasn’t until St. Jerome translated the books of the Bible into Latin. From there, we read the Bible in our own language. Without context, any number of interpretations arise. Without the teaching authority of Church, these incorrect interpretations give rise to false doctrines. As mentioned above, false statements about the perpetual virginity of Mary existed in the 7th and 8th century.

It may be worth your time to read this book (http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Home+Page/BOOKS/Bible+Study/DOES+THE+BIBLE+REALLY+SAY+THAT.axd) and find a good study Bible.

The Catholic Church has been teaching the fullness of Christian faith since the beginning. Any question you may have has likely been asked in the 2000 years since the Resurrection. I encourage to ask them! Ask your pastor. Also, consider reading catholic.com and ewtn.com.


27 posted on 03/26/2015 1:05:13 PM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
That contains false information about the translation of the Greek kecharitomene. In no way can the Greek be translated to include "full of grace"

...and it says that WHERE, in the Bible, exactly? Chapter and verse, please, since you're an adherent to "sola Scriptura". Surely no one is expecting us to take mere Protestant assertions as fact, right?

which has been shown multiple times on these threads.

"Asserted", yes. "Shown", no. Repetition of guesswork and opinion, despite the opinion of Goebbels, does not transform it into a fact.

Only two people have ever been called "full of grace" and they were Jesus and Stephen.

Based on which Greek lexicon, which translation of the Bible, and which verses? And would you be so kind as to explain whether your Greek lexicon (and your interpretations based on it) are infallible and sure, or not?
28 posted on 03/26/2015 1:09:48 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"Once you are a member of a denomination that believes itself to be incapable of teaching error ... "

OR

Once you are a member of a denomination that believes IN itself .

Which seems to be more the case ...

I believe me, therefore I am right.

29 posted on 03/26/2015 1:14:53 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

Your tagline is apropos ... Thank You for your reply.


30 posted on 03/26/2015 1:17:17 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a Bible study class taught by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church.

Two of those half brothers of Jesus, James and Jude, wrote books in the New Testament.

31 posted on 03/26/2015 1:19:35 PM PDT by Mark17 (Beyond the sunset, O blissful morning, when with our Savior, Heaven is begun. Earth's toiling ended)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
If forced to choose between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia,

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by "sola ecclesia"; can you expand on that? I'm not confident enough in my guesses to assume that it's a direct parallel with "sola Scriptura".

I will choose sola scriptura.

That is not an option which is open to anyone who values logic. "Sola Scriptura" presupposes that we know the exact contents of "Scriptura" (i.e. the Bible), which Protestants do *not* (they threw out 7 entire books and pieces of at least 2 others); it presupposes that the Bible can be interpreted without any significant error by any given person (though the Bible says that this is not true--cf. 2 Peter 3:16-17; Acts 8:31, etc.), and it supposes that the Bible itself teaches that "the Bible alone is the norm of faith" (which it does not).

Further: "sola Scriptura", which insists that "nothing outside of the Bible [whatever they think that to be] is binding on the Christian conscience", is NOT IN the Bible (and is therefore not fit as a rule to bind your approach to the Bible). One might as well elect a square circle as President of the United States. (Actually, on second thought, that'd be quite a bit better for the country! But I digress...)

The Church has made mistakes.

It depends on how you mean that. If you mean that "people in the Church--even popes and other clergy--have made mistakes (or even sinned grievously)", that would be true. If, rather, you mean that "the Bride and Body of Christ, promised to be preserved indefectible by the Holy Spirit, has made mistakes", then that is not true. Not one of her solemn teachings has contained error, not one of them contradicts any other (or anything in Scripture), and not one has been substantially changed or repealed, in 2000 years. I daresay that Protestantism does not, and cannot, make that same claim--for numerous reasons.

The Bible never has.

Just as an exercise: from where did the Bible (and the list of its true contents) come?
32 posted on 03/26/2015 1:22:07 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: paladinan; CynicalBear

I am not knowledgeable in koine Greek. However, I found this article interesting.

http://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=marian_studies

It is a scholarly piece.


33 posted on 03/26/2015 1:23:07 PM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jobim; RnMomof7
Oh sweet Mother Mary, lead all of your children to ...

She's dead. jobim! If there is a Mary leading anyone, she is leading them NOT to Jesus, but more likely ...


34 posted on 03/26/2015 1:24:56 PM PDT by WVKayaker (Impeachment is the Constitution's answer for a derelict, incompetent president! -Sarah Palin 7/26/14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
Neither Luther nor Calvin "created" "protestantism"

By definition, protestantism is the state of being in protest (in this case, religious) ... a state which most all people are guilty

If you actively work against obama ... you are a protestant

Perhaps you should stop using a mis-used word and start using "non-Catholic"

It is one who is not a Catrholic that will state things the Catholic interprets as hostile .. thus "protestant"

35 posted on 03/26/2015 1:25:25 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
St. Bridget of Sweden (d. 1373) claimed that Mary appeared to her and personally confirmed the Immaculate Conception.

And Roman Catholics like to make fun of Pentecostals!

36 posted on 03/26/2015 1:25:27 PM PDT by Gamecock ("The Christian who has stopped repenting has stopped growing." A.W. Pink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
KEYWORDS: mary; moacb; salvation; sin; worship; Click to Add Keyword

ROTFL

37 posted on 03/26/2015 1:26:47 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The man is listening to God rather than to the Catholic Church. Why do you fear that?

That's both a false dilemma, and a silly absurdity; St. John, on Patmos, might as well have said that he "will listen only to the voice of God, and not the voice of any silly angel", if this idea (which you typed) were implemented.

In short: only a Protestant with fierce and irrational anti-Catholic biases could even conceive of saying such a thing.
38 posted on 03/26/2015 1:26:56 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

Again, not a scholar, but another interesting piece.

https://books.google.com/books?id=t_JtmrGDLB4C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=kecharitomene&source=bl&ots=AuCXrYTzzT&sig=2zDRwhnJ1QXWf_HrWZ0CI40gkAY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hGsUVaPTM4ehNvHlgNgJ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=kecharitomene&f=false


39 posted on 03/26/2015 1:27:55 PM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

If I ever meet you I’ll buy you a beer. I admire a Catholic with integrity.


40 posted on 03/26/2015 1:31:09 PM PDT by Gamecock ("The Christian who has stopped repenting has stopped growing." A.W. Pink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-225 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