Bad Popes..Pulp Fiction...Yea though I walk

[stewstew03]

thanks for catching that…it should have been:

1. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

I noticed, and I knew what you meant…(figured it was a typo)

…btw what example can you give of the HS attaching to any office…as opposed to the HS indwelling the occupant of that office. You claim this sort of animal exists…do you have any example of such an animal besides the one that you allege exists?

The Holy Spirit prevents bad popes from officially teaching in error, according to our beliefs.

Here’s a question for you (a variation of what I asked you before): would you not agree that the Holy Spirit prevented fallible men from choosing the wrong books for the canon of scripture?

they used the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh? They didn’t need to change any doctrine in order to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh.

Right - the Holy Spirit prevented them from changing doctrine. Looks like we agree on this then…

yes…in fact any overseer who does not continue to meet the qualifications of an overseer as set out in Titus and 1 Tim should be quickly removed from the office.

Sorry, I meant “severed.” Can the Pope be severed from the Papal Office, i.e., the teaching authority of the Church? If the gates of hell prevail against the man, can they also prevail against the “office?”

 

[stewstew03]

In other words, I think that the candidates for the “bad Pope” label are more numerous than those listed by Catholics on this thread and the rest shouldn’t be considered “good Popes” by default.

In your opinion, were there any “good Popes” Radical?

Catholics today reserve the right to categorize any disagreeable thing as being not an ex-cathedra teaching. In that way the corruption is wiped off the books.

Wiped off the books? Hardly. But you’re quite right about correcting the past with guidance from the Holy Spirit. By the grace of God, Radical, the Church will persevere to the end.

Too contrived…to convenient.

Contrived? No. But it does seem rather inconvenient for you (regrettably).

 

[AbideWithMe]

This can be a hectic time of the year for those of us about to finish off this year of university. Luckily I only have one Paper left on Aristotle, but it means all of the resources I would like to use for this thread, I currently don’t have, and have reached my limit of the amount of books I can take out from the Library at one time.

I know i will try to chime in when I can, but i don’t like stating something from my own notes, without seeing the original source

I’ll look for you later, Skeptic92. God’s blessings be on you as you finish your paper.

 

[AbideWithMe]

If you rejected Lutheranism based on Luther’s anti-judaism, it is hard to see that going to the Catholic Church is much better. Now, to be sure, we are talking about a different era, and it is safe to say that neither communion looks back on those days with pride. But the fact is that Luther’s was not in a vacuum. In fact, early on in his career, he was accused by some Catholics of being a judaizer because he spoke so highly of them. It is a reflection of his time. That’s not an excuse for Luther or Ecke, or the many others. But it does explain it.

As for the Hitler era, I get the impression that Lutherans and Catholics both have been painted with a broad brush regarding their opposition to The Third Reich.

Jon

This is true. And, though not wishing to get too off track, in the present day I haven’t seen among Lutherans the hateful anti-Jewish attacks that I still infrequently run into from some extreme traditionalist Catholics.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is true. And, though not wishing to get too off track, in the present day I haven’t seen among Lutherans the hateful anti-Jewish attacks that I still infrequently run into from some extreme traditionalist Catholics.

Abide,

What is it these traditionalist Catholics say or do that cause you to say that they are hateful anti-Jewish?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Coptic—

I don’t want to get even more off the thread topic than I already have. I’ll start another thread on it when I have time.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

I don’t want to get even more off the thread topic than I already have. I’ll start another thread on it when I have time.

Abide,

You are an enigma. I have observed your posts and I comment. You have a tendency to generalize and then not explain those generalizations. You say that your questions are not being addressesed and then do not formulate direct questions. You infer and suggest reasons for not posting.

I suggest you post an open, honest and direct question and let the moderators decide if the response is off track. The rules of engagement on these threads vary however if you wander I doubt that there will be any hesitation, as I have seen many do this, to direct you back or start another thread.

I see you saying things that make me wonder and that creates anxiety and frustration for me. I don’t know about anyone else. I ask you to just answer a question when asked and formulate a question that you want answered. Let the threads go where they may and let the direction take its course.

I ask you again to respond and if it necessitates another thread, you will agree, that I have no problem starting threads.

FYI the notion of Liberal, Consevative etc as it regards Catholics is a misnomer. There are practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. Some practice well and others don’t. The OHCAC does not have categories of membership that relate to you designation. Understand that this is something you have to explain as to how you choose to categorize. Search this site on the main page for this notion and you will find things like this.

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-a-sin-for-catholic-to-be-a-liberal-or-is-it-a-sin-to-be-a-conservative

Is it a sin for Catholic to be a liberal, or is it a sin to be a conservative?

The question is impossible to answer because the labels liberal and conservative are too vague. The focus should be on determining whether particular propositions that individuals either hold to or reject are true or false. For example:

Abortion is morally neutral because a person has the freedom to choose. (False)
Euthanasia is a moral evil because it is a form of murder. (True)
Same-sex marriage is a moral good because it allows people to enter into marriage with those they love, regardless of their gender. (False)
Care must be taken not to reduce complex human beings to the sum of the labels they bear or to unjustly condemn them on the basis of labels they either accept or are given.

 

[Radical]

Can you provide that verse which states that above?

look at the NT and see what it says about what the HS will do and what fruit (in men) that will yield

Well, how do you how unrighteous they were?

by what we know about what they said and did

How did you come to such a conclusion? I thought only God can judge…so you are making a judgement here?

is this the Catholic approach? Is that why such sinful fellows were appointed as Pope and why the requirements laid out for an overseer (in the NT) were ignored by the CC? The Catholics believed that they couldn’t judge who was blameless and who wasn’t so as to be able to follow God’s command?

Did you just base your conclusions on what their enemies or those with gripes againts them wrote about them? How can you trust that what their enemies wrote about them are not exaggerated, or are truth beyond doubt?

it is the consensus that they were bad…very bad. Do you actually believe otherwise?

So…how do you know what the Holy Spirit does or does not want to do?

based on what the NT tells us about what the HS will and will not do

Can you tell the Holy Spirit what to do and not what to do?..Are you capable of telling the Holy Spirit when to be present or not to be present?

help me out with this please…I need your advice. I know of this group of Christians that believes that when their leader says certain words at a certain time, God will be made present in the bread and the wine that the leader has with him. Now, should I believe a) that these Christians think that they can make God jump through hoops on command (in your words, tell God when to be present or not to be present) ; or b) that these Christians think ( that based on what God did and said in the NT) that God will (willingly) become present when their leader says those certain words? Once you have given me your advice on that matter, I might be able you use your answer to explain how we can anticipate what God would do in certain instances.

Or you are just making an assumption…of “it is likely”…it is also likely the opposite of what you assume…since the Holy Spirit can do what it wants, correct?

here again I need your help…I am trying to understand how God would act……so that we can see if there is any likelihood of infallibility being attached to an office as Catholics now claim. Based on what we know about God from the OT and NT why should we believe:

a) That God would continue to tolerate grossly immoral individuals as the leaders of his children and not end that line of leadership…in this regard I can think of king Saul, the Davidic line of kings and the priest Eli and it doesn’t seem that such toleration and continuation of the line would be likely

b) That God would attach a spiritual gift to an office so that it is forever available to the holder of the office…when God wanted one of his servants to speak/write infallibly in both the OT and the NT he didn’t create an office that would provide the holder of the office (and all successors ) with that ability. In virtually every instance God selected a righteous individual to be his spokesman….the exceptions being rare and very short lived. The clear trend being that God selected righteous individuals to speak on his behalf….and the creation of an infallible office doesn’t have any precedent. What have I missed?

c) That Peter received a supreme office and that office travelled with him wherever he went (it attached to him), but when Peter died the office attached to the bishopric closest to the location of his death (as opposed to dying with Peter or attaching somewhere else)… Where is the sense in that? Why not attach to the bishopric closest to where Christ died and where Peter allegedly received the office and first led? If a Pope died outside of Rome, then on the basis of how it supposedly worked in the first case, wouldn’t it follow that the office would attach to the bishopric closest to where that Pope died?

I just don’t see how your claim is likely to be true.

 

[Radical]

Here’s a question for you (a variation of what I asked you before): would you not agree that the Holy Spirit prevented fallible men from choosing the wrong books for the canon of scripture?

that is very close to the way I would describe it…it was a long process, starting with the Jews and the books of the OT. It involved much more than just the hierarchy wrt both the OT and the NT and I don’t see any infallible office being utilized or a permanant gift of infallibility being provided for that long, long process.

Right - the Holy Spirit prevented them from changing doctrine. Looks like we agree on this then…

this isn’t close to the way that i would word it…practical concerns gave them no desire to change doctrine…no preventative effort would have been required.

Sorry, I meant “severed.” Can the Pope be severed from the Papal Office, i.e., the teaching authority of the Church? If the gates of hell prevail against the man, can they also prevail against the “office?”

please clarify further…for starters I expect we differ greatly on what we would consider as the “gates of hell prevailing”

In your opinion, were there any “good Popes” Radical?

yep…and it would appear that there is one now

 

[stewstew03]

that is very close to the way I would describe it…it was a long process, starting with the Jews and the books of the OT. It involved much more than just the hierarchy wrt both the OT and the NT and I don’t see any infallible office being utilized or a permanant gift of infallibility being provided for that long, long process.

Anything that the Church declares as dogma takes centuries to develop.

this isn’t close to the way that i would word it…practical concerns gave them no desire to change doctrine…no preventative effort would have been required.

But this is just conjecture on your part, so we’re just going to reach a dead end.

please clarify further…for starters I expect we differ greatly on what we would consider as the “gates of hell prevailing”

You suggest there is a distinction, and then ask me to clarify that distinction? Why don’t you tell me how “we differ greatly on what we would consider as the ‘gates of hell prevailing.’”

yep…and it would appear that there is one now

Great, glad we agree on something. Was the Holy Spirit with the good Popes? Is the Holy Spirit with the current Pope?

 

[stewstew03]

a) That God would continue to tolerate grossly immoral individuals as the leaders of his children and not end that line of leadership

Radical, Google is your friend. Please Google “impeccability” and “infallibility” so that you understand the difference.

Afterwards, use the Google search engine to find the book “Martin Luther’s dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies, A precursor to Nazism” by Jim Walker. While you’re on the computer and doing research on protestant immorality, visit a few websites like: this one on bad protestant leaders or stopbaptistpredators.org or visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians, then explain to me how God continues to tolerate protestantism.

b) That God would attach a spiritual gift to an office so that it is forever available to the holder of the office…when God wanted one of his servants to speak/write infallibly in both the OT and the NT he didn’t create an office that would provide the holder of the office (and all successors ) with that ability. In virtually every instance God selected a righteous individual to be his spokesman….the exceptions being rare and very short lived. The clear trend being that God selected righteous individuals to speak on his behalf….and the creation of an infallible office doesn’t have any precedent. What have I missed?

Who are the righteous individuals speaking on behalf of God today?

c) That Peter received a supreme office and that office travelled with him wherever he went (it attached to him), but when Peter died the office attached to the bishopric closest to the location of his death (as opposed to dying with Peter or attaching somewhere else)… Where is the sense in that? Why not attach to the bishopric closest to where Christ died and where Peter allegedly received the office and first led? If a Pope died outside of Rome, then on the basis of how it supposedly worked in the first case, wouldn’t it follow that the office would attach to the bishopric closest to where that Pope died?

I just don’t see how your claim is likely to be true.

You believe in an infallible bible, right? An infallible bible written by fallible men, the contents of which were chosen by fallible men… are you infallibly certain that the bible is infallible?

 

[Radical]

Radical, Google is your friend. Please Google “impeccability” and “infallibility” so that you understand the difference.

I keep asking why a God, who demands righteousness, would continue to grant the gift of infallibility to a line of very unrighteous men?

you have avoided that question like the plague…I guess b/c you have no answer…it would seem that it is merely something that you need to believe. The question itself distinguishes between unrighteousness and infallibility, so are not fooling any one by continuing to assert that “impeccability” is different from “infallibility”

Afterwards, use the Google search engine to find the book “Martin Luther’s dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies, A precursor to Nazism” by Jim Walker. While you’re on the computer and doing research on protestant immorality,…

why? are the Lutherans or other protestants claiming that their immoral leaders occupied an office possessed of the gift of infallibility?

Did the Lutherans or other protestants turn their back on God when they appointed their leaders to this office of supposed infallibility and then still claim that the office possessed that gift from God… even though they had turned from God with the act of appointing an immoral man to that office?

…then explain to me how God continues to tolerate protestantism.

yep,…immoral Protestnats wouldn’t have the gift of infallibility either

Who are the righteous individuals speaking on behalf of God today?

same as always…those to which God has granted his Spirit

You believe in an infallible bible, right?

no I don’t

An infallible bible written by fallible men, the contents of which were chosen by fallible men… are you infallibly certain that the bible is infallible?

I don’t claim the gift of infallibility for myself (or any office of mine)…no man should.

 

[stewstew03]

no I don’t (claim the bible is infallible)

I don’t claim the gift of infallibility for myself (or any office of mine)…no man should.

If you believe the bible is fallible, then why quote it as your source of truth? This makes zero sense. Which protestant denomination do you belong to?

 

[Radical]

If you believe the bible is fallible, then why quote it as your source of truth? This makes zero sense.

really? First, I think you are fooling yourself if you think your bible is w/o error…tell me, which Greek manuscript (which differs from all the other Greek manuscripts) is the one that is w/o error?..or is it that the Catholic translators picked exactly the error free transcript to work from for each and every verse? …or is it that some early latin version is w/o any error? Second, we live in a world of only fallible sources…does your country forego any criminal trials b/c neither side can produce an infallible witness? Are conversations between family members, relatives and friends something that doesn’t happen in your country b/c, w/o an infallible source, nothing is believable…is that the way life works for you?

 

[JonNC]

Afterwards, use the Google search engine to find the book “Martin Luther’s dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies, A precursor to Nazism” by Jim Walker. While you’re on the computer and doing research on protestant immorality, visit a few websites like: this one on bad protestant leaders or stopbaptistpredators.org or visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians, then explain to me how God continues to tolerate protestantism.

Stew,
You brought Luther into this, so a quick reply. I join you in condemning Luther’s anti-judaism. I also recognize Luther was, in this way, a product of his time and, honestly, the Church he grew up in in that time. Anti-judaism was a deep problem for Catholicism. Early on in Luther’s teaching, when he was complimentary of them and defended them, some Catholics accused him and other reformers as being judaizers.

As you bring up Luther’s book, perhaps Johann Eck deserves equal time for his book, Refutation of a Jew-Book , and perhaps an Eck quote: “Could [the Jews] but drown all Christians in one spoon, they would eagerly do it."
And to claim that this was somehow missed by Catholic leaders is questionable, as he was quite the hero in Rome for his attacks on Luther.

The fact is that this is a glass house for both of us.

Jon

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

You are an enigma. I have observed your posts and I comment. You have a tendency to generalize and then not explain those generalizations. You say that your questions are not being addressesed and then do not formulate direct questions. You infer and suggest reasons for not posting.

I suggest you post an open, honest and direct question and let the moderators decide if the response is off track. The rules of engagement on these threads vary however if you wander I doubt that there will be any hesitation, as I have seen many do this, to direct you back or start another thread.

I see you saying things that make me wonder and that creates anxiety and frustration for me. I don’t know about anyone else. I ask you to just answer a question when asked and formulate a question that you want answered. Let the threads go where they may and let the direction take its course.

I ask you again to respond and if it necessitates another thread, you will agree, that I have no problem starting threads.

FYI the notion of Liberal, Consevative etc as it regards Catholics is a misnomer. There are practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. Some practice well and others don’t. The OHCAC does not have categories of membership that relate to you designation. Understand that this is something you have to explain as to how you choose to categorize. Search this site on the main page for this notion and you will find things like this.

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-a-sin-for-catholic-to-be-a-liberal-or-is-it-a-sin-to-be-a-conservative

Is it a sin for Catholic to be a liberal, or is it a sin to be a conservative?

Hi Coptic—

As for me being enigmatic, well, I do apologize to the extent that I’m not more forthcoming. There a several reasons for that; none of them sinister. First, I’m simply really busy—I’m an artist, and I have to get some pieces finished for a gallery and another exhibition; I get deeply focused on my work and get into a non-verbal sort of state often, so even when I do have a bit of free time, it can be a very hard for me to switch into a more verbally communicative mode—if I’d been a monk in some Irish monastery in the 800’s I’d have happily taken a vow of silence and poured my attention into creating some illuminated manuscript; additionally, I have to help some of my elderly relatives with things; and I have a whole lot of farm work to do in the spring on my farm. So I know I must seem kind of squirrelly as far as replying consistently on threads, but my family and work take priority and I usually don’t feel too bad if I can’t keep up with replies on a forum. At the same time, I do regret being an inconsistent discussion partner here.

Hmm…I didn’t say anything about liberal Catholics. Maybe someone else did, but it wasn’t me.

Well, as far as my comment that I’ve seen some really hateful anti-Semitism from a few extreme traditional Catholics, I’ll see what I can come up with from recent memory without looking up websites. One thing I ran into a few weeks ago was this: someone here at CAF posted an article called “Catholics and Beer: A Love Story”. Thinking it would be a humorous essay, I read it. A link was provided back to the original article, which was on a website called “Jahn and Jett”. Below the beer essay at Jahn and Jett was another article entitled “Saint Adolf Hitler”. It was an terrible article purporting to show what a good Catholic Hitler was…stupid, of course, but believed by these Jahn and Jett writers who also write articles about traditional Catholicism. I have no idea who these idiots really are, but they present themselves as traditional Catholics going by their other articles. They may be SSPX affiliated, but I couldn’t ascertain that.

Another thing I ran into a few weeks ago was a website called “holywar.org” I think. Fordham University’s website has the English translation of Chrysostom’s “Adversus Judaeos” posted, and they found the text at what they called a “horrific anti-Semitic Catholic site”, being used to justify current anti-Semitism. I took a look at the holywar site, and it is horrific indeed. I read a few articles there, one of which was a reprint of an article from an SSPX magazine (“The Angelus”, I’m thinking). Some of holywar’s articles were SSPX-generated, some were not.

 

[LilyM]

really? First, I think you are fooling yourself if you think your bible is w/o error…tell me, which Greek manuscript (which differs from all the other Greek manuscripts) is the one that is w/o error?..or is it that the Catholic translators picked exactly the error free transcript to work from for each and every verse? …or is it that some early latin version is w/o any error? Second, we live in a world of only fallible sources…does your country forego any criminal trials b/c neither side can produce an infallible witness? Are conversations between family members, relatives and friends something that doesn’t happen in your country b/c, w/o an infallible source, nothing is believable…is that the way life works for you?

Well, conversations between family members are not the stuff on which the salvation of our souls or our relationship with God depends! I won’t go to Hell for all eternity for getting it wrong about what to have for lunch, or what curfew time the children should have, or whether the Red Sox are better than the Yankees, or any of the other interesting but spiritually inconsequential stuff that makes up my conversations with family and friends.

If, on the other hand, if the Bible is fallible then we cannot even know that God said ‘thou shalt not steal’. It would be the easiest error in the world to put a ‘not’ in there when it was actually meant to be ‘thou SHALT steal’. And we would never know, by your logic, because the Bible is fallible. Could mean a huge and significant chunk of our very common Judeo-Christian morality, our attitude towards theft, is COMPLETELY off-base and contrary to God’s command!

Do you honestly believe God would permit such monstrous error?

So - how do you know Jesus actually said ‘suffer the children to come unto me, and hinder them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven made’? Or ‘if you would be perfect, sell all you possess and come follow me’? Because His actual words could just as easily have been ‘do NOT suffer the children to come to me, and DO forbid them, for of NO such is the Kingdom of Heaven made’. Or ‘if you would be perfect, sell HALF of what you possess and come follow me.’ It takes only the tiniest error for the text of a verse to be entirely changed!

People don’t argue the tiniest part of a fraction as much about what the text actually says as what its deeper meaning and application is. So I would suggest it is really not the text or translations that are errant. We know this because comparisons can be made between the texts we have, from the earliest to the most modern, including recently-uncovered ones such as parts of the OT among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The consistency, for such an old and oft-translated text, is remarkable, especially in comparison with any other text of similar age.

 

[robwar]

Stew,
You brought Luther into this, so a quick reply. I join you in condemning Luther’s anti-judaism. I also recognize Luther was, in this way, a product of his time and, honestly, the Church he grew up in in that time. Anti-judaism was a deep problem for Catholicism. Early on in Luther’s teaching, when he was complimentary of them and defended them, some Catholics accused him and other reformers as being judaizers.

As you bring up Luther’s book, perhaps Johann Eck deserves equal time for his book, Refutation of a Jew-Book , and perhaps an Eck quote: “Could [the Jews] but drown all Christians in one spoon, they would eagerly do it."
And to claim that this was somehow missed by Catholic leaders is questionable, as he was quite the hero in Rome for his attacks on Luther.

The fact is that this is a glass house for both of us.

Jon

we should probably have another post about this whole matter. anti-semitism is clearly and definitively condemned now by the CAtholic Church and the Church has pulled the plug on any priest etc that would teach otherwise such as Fr. Couglin. The Catholic church did more to save Jews during WWII than any other denomination in Europe at the time. Actually most Protestants are not aware of Luther and his anti-semitism which did come later in his life, they just want to point fingers at the Catholic Church. The Catholic church has also issued apologies to Jews. Where are the Lutheran apologies? Growing up Methodist, we always looked up to Luther as the big point man, the brave guy to stood up to the bad Catholic Church. Most Protestants do, Lutheran or not. However, growing up looking to Luther, we never read any thing he actually wrote, it was just about what he did. Later, when I actually read things Luther wrote, I was pretty agast at his anger and violence not just towards Jews but alot of others and felt deceived and that his stuff is covered up. it is not honest not to talk about him and to try to shut down the conversation by saying that we can’t.

 

[stewstew03]

Stew,

The fact is that this is a glass house for both of us.

Absolutely Jon, that was my point.

Radical is looking for evidence of impeccability to “prove” infallible teaching. The Pope still goes to confession. You won’t find an impeccable Christian leader - in Catholicism or Protestantism. So, by Radical’s standards, what are we left with? Fallible scripture and fallible teachers. What value is the Gospel if no one can infallibly discern the good news? It’s terrible theology that leaves us with an unreasonable God and no way to understand His message.

 

[stewstew03]

Well, conversations between family members are not the stuff on which the salvation of our souls or our relationship with God depends! I won’t go to Hell for all eternity for getting it wrong about what to have for lunch, or what curfew time the children should have, or whether the Red Sox are better than the Yankees, or any of the other interesting but spiritually inconsequential stuff that makes up my conversations with family and friends.

If, on the other hand, if the Bible is fallible then we cannot even know that God said ‘thou shalt not steal’. It would be the easiest error in the world to put a ‘not’ in there when it was actually meant to be ‘thou SHALT steal’. And we would never know, by your logic, because the Bible is fallible. Could mean a huge and significant chunk of our very common Judeo-Christian morality, our attitude towards theft, is COMPLETELY off-base and contrary to God’s command!

Do you honestly believe God would permit such monstrous error?

So - how do you know Jesus actually said ‘suffer the children to come unto me, and hinder them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven made’? Or ‘if you would be perfect, sell all you possess and come follow me’? Because His actual words could just as easily have been ‘do NOT suffer the children to come to me, and DO forbid them, for of NO such is the Kingdom of Heaven made’. Or ‘if you would be perfect, sell HALF of what you possess and come follow me.’ It takes only the tiniest error for the text of a verse to be entirely changed!

People don’t argue the tiniest part of a fraction as much about what the text actually says as what its deeper meaning and application is. So I would suggest it is really not the text or translations that are errant. We know this because comparisons can be made between the texts we have, from the earliest to the most modern, including recently-uncovered ones such as parts of the OT among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The consistency, for such an old and oft-translated text, is remarkable, especially in comparison with any other text of similar age.

Well said, Lily. Reminds me of a quote by John Cardinal Gibbons:

“You tell me to drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned…?”