Papal Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Axiombob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Axiombob

Guest
Someone, please help me with this quote. I am considering conversion to Catholocism, but my protestant friends direct me to things for which I have no answer. The following quote is designed to demonstrate why Papal Infallibility cannot be true.

“Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it. Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monotheism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures-human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess. Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the ‘great defender of the Deity of Christ,’ and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat. …Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it. The list of such errors is quite lengthy, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove our point.”

from allaboutreligion.org/Pope-John-Paul-II.htm
 
I am going to be very vague here due to the fact I am not 100% familiar with all this but I believe that no Pope spoke “ex cathedra” on these matters. Only ex cathedra statements are infallible, as well as teachings on faith and morality, such as birth control, abortion, women’s ordination, etc, and also the canonization of saints. But if I am wrong, would somone please correct me.

DU
 
40.png
Axiombob:
Someone, please help me with this quote. I am considering conversion to Catholocism, but my protestant friends direct me to things for which I have no answer. The following quote is designed to demonstrate why Papal Infallibility cannot be true.

“Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it. Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monotheism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures-human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess. Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the ‘great defender of the Deity of Christ,’ and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat. …Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it. The list of such errors is quite lengthy, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove our point.”

from allaboutreligion.org/Pope-John-Paul-II.htm
Click to expand...
Each of these would take hours to research individually. You must know the context in which these things were “taught” , “authorized”, etc. To make a general statement Popes speak all the time as individuals and in this context do not have the charism of Infallibility. They may write, speak or comment on a variety of topics that have nothing to do with Faith and Morals.
 
Well, for starters, “monotheism” is NOT a heresy. :whacky: And I know that the bible of Sixtus V was widely considered to be very poor; apparently, he died on the eve of its publication. This may be evidence of the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The suppression and re-institution of the Jesuits is a disciplinary matter and does not fall under the umbrella of infallibility.

If a pope offered incense to a pagan deity, that is appalling, but if he did not teach that it is OK to do so, then THAT doesn’t come under infallibility. If a pope sins, does that make sin acceptable? No.

Duelling does not come under the infallibility umbrella either.

More later. gotta run.
 
40.png
Axiombob:
Someone, please help me with this quote. I am considering conversion to Catholocism, but my protestant friends direct me to things for which I have no answer. The following quote is designed to demonstrate why Papal Infallibility cannot be true.
Click to expand...
Axiombob,

You’re dealing with the “shotgun” assault, where your adversary deliberately throws tons of unfounded accusations against you in hopes that you don’t have time to debunk each one and therefore leaves you with doubt or makes you look like you cannot answer.

Therefore, ask your opponent to pick the ONE best example that they feel demonstrates their point. Have them prove it it by showing where a Pope defined a teaching on faith or morals for the whole church or anathemizes anyone who says “[insert heresy]”. Then your opponent will have to show where another Pope did the same thing, but in reverse. You then independently check their information.

See these articles on what Papal Infalliblity is (and is not):
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

They have the burden of proof as they are trying to convince you. Once you put the challenge on these terms, you’ll likely not hear back from them.😉
 
*The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441) *

It says that I am outside of Salvation despite of my acceptance of Christ. This is not a mere misinterpretation. I am a protestant and as such I am considered a schismatic. Was it infallible? Also in the council of Trent the church condemns Protestants, by listing Protestant beliefs and saying that we are anathemas and are outside of Salvation. So how then can Catholics say that it doesn’t condemn protestants
 
bjcros said:
The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

It says that I am outside of Salvation despite of my acceptance of Christ. This is not a mere misinterpretation. I am a protestant and as such I am considered a schismatic. Was it infallible? Also in the council of Trent the church condemns Protestants, by listing Protestant beliefs and saying that we are anathemas and are outside of Salvation. So how then can Catholics say that it doesn’t condemn protestants
Click to expand...

“‘Unless before death they are joined with her’ is the key phrase. These people can be joined to the Church without knowing it. If they are pagans, Jews, protestants, etc. through no fault of their own, they may be saved through the Church.” Genesis315

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=619188&postcount=32
 
Sarah Jane said:
"‘Unless before death they are joined with her’ is the key phrase. These people can be joined to the Church without knowing it. If they are pagans, Jews, protestants, etc. through no fault of their own, they may be saved through the Church." Genesis315
forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=619188&postcount=32
Click to expand...

How can they be joined to the church without knowing it? They believe things that the Catholic Church says puts them outside of it. I know I am not joined to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church says that I am outside of Salvation. I say the Catholic Church is wrong especially with this issue. Nobody is saved because they go to mass, go to church, or does good. We are saved by Christ and a personal relationship with him and that is it nothing else can save us. And that is Biblical.
 
Hello Axiombob,

Can you imagine the United States with two, twelve or thirty thousand presidents? Can you think of a reason or many reasons why our founding fathers decided upon one president over having many?

Authority unites a group of people. Most nations, clubs, organizations etc. put one person in unequaled authority over all other members of the group to unit the body of people.

So you have to ask yourself, does Jesus will His Church to be united?

God put the authority of the Israelite Church into the hands of the sons of Aaron only. God did this to unite His Church. Anyone else who took this authority upon themselves were to be put to death. The leaders of the Israelite Church were not perfect. They instigated the death of our Lord Jesus. Yet Jesus, before His death and ressurection, still recognizes and respects the authority God had instilled in them. After His ressurection, Jesus puts the authority of His Church into St. Peter and his successors the liniage of popes, hands.

Instead of looking for failings in Church leadership as to base your decision on, would it not be better to base your decision on the will of Jesus Christ? Jesus knew St. Peter would betray Him, yet He still put St. Peter in unequaled authority over all the rest of His followers on earth. Jesus did this to unite His people. (NAB MAT 12:25) “A kingdom torn by strife is headed for its downfall. A town or household split into factions cannot last for long.” Should you not base your desicion on Jesus will to have one person in unequaled authority over His followers?

Please visit St. Peter’s chair.

NAB MAT 16:13 Jesus replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.
NAB MAT 23:2

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” NAB NUM 18:1

The LORD said to Aaron, "You and your sons as well as the other members of you ancestral house shall be responsible for the sanctuary; but the responsibility of the priesthood shall rest on you and your sons alone. …//… 7: But only you and your sons are to have charge of performing the priestly functions in whatever concerns the altar and the room within the veil. I give you the priesthood as a gift. Any layman who draws near shall be put to death." NUMBERS 16

NAB NUM 3:38

East of the Dwelling, that is in front of the meeting tent, toward the sunrise, were camped Moses and Aaron and the latter’s sons. They discharged the obligations of the sanctuary for the Israelites.** Any layman who came near was to be put to death. **NAB EXO 29:9

“Thus shall the priesthood be theirs by perpetual law, and thus shall you ordain Aaron and his sons.” **NAB 2CH 13:9 **

"Have you not expelled the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of the foreign lands? Everyone who comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams becomes a priest of no-gods. But as for us, the LORD is our God, and we have not forsaken him. The priests ministering to the LORD are sons of Aaron, and the Levites also have their offices. They burn holocausts to the LORD and fragrant incense morning after morning and evening after evening; they display the showbread on the pure table, and the lamps of the golden lampstand burn evening after evening; for we observe our duties to the LORD, our God, but you have abandoned him. See, God is with us, at our head, and his priests are here with trumpets to sound the attack against you. Do not battle against the LORD, the God of your fathers, O Israelites, for you will not succeed!"

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
bjcros said:
The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

It says that I am outside of Salvation despite of my acceptance of Christ. This is not a mere misinterpretation. I am a protestant and as such I am considered a schismatic. Was it infallible? Also in the council of Trent the church condemns Protestants, by listing Protestant beliefs and saying that we are anathemas and are outside of Salvation. So how then can Catholics say that it doesn’t condemn protestants
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church does not say you are outside of salvation. You haven’t misinterpreted the document, you have taken it out of context. What you failed to meniton is the Catholic Church’s teaching on mortal and venial sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the condition for something to be considered a mortal sin.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge
Click to expand...
and deliberate consent."
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY

I emphasize committed with full knowledge because for something to be a sin, a person has to know it is a sin. If a person, through no fault of his own, does not know something is sinful, he is not guilty of that sin. This is called invincible ignorance. Obviously, if someone chooses to remain in his ignorance and could know the truth, this wouldn’t apply.
I only know you from this forum, so from what I know of you I would not say you are outside salvation, judging by the teachings of my Church.
The Council of Trent’s condemnation of Protestant beliefs is addressed to those Catholics-turned-Protestant at the time of the reformation. Anyone who believes the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ and remains outside of it is outside of salvation. If you would like more information click the following link.
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/part3.html

Whenever you read any Church document, it must be taken within the full context of Church teaching.
My opinion of you is I think you are a devout Christian and you defend your beliefs very well. I disagree with you, but I respect your beliefs and I’m impressed by the way you defend your beliefs with charity. Pax tecum.
 
Swiss Guard said:
The Catholic Church does not say you are outside of salvation. You haven’t misinterpreted the document, you have taken it out of context. What you failed to meniton is the Catholic Church’s teaching on mortal and venial sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the condition for something to be considered a mortal sin.

I emphasize committed with full knowledge because for something to be a sin, a person has to know it is a sin. If a person, through no fault of his own, does not know something is sinful, he is not guilty of that sin. This is called invincible ignorance. Obviously, if someone chooses to remain in his ignorance and could know the truth, this wouldn’t apply.

I only know you from this forum, so from what I know of you I would not say you are outside salvation, judging by the teachings of my Church.

The Council of Trent’s condemnation of Protestant beliefs is addressed to those Catholics-turned-Protestant at the time of the reformation. Anyone who believes the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ and remains outside of it is outside of salvation. If you would like more information click the following link.
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/part3.html

Whenever you read any Church document, it must be taken within the full context of Church teaching.

My opinion of you is I think you are a devout Christian and you defend your beliefs very well. I disagree with you, but I respect your beliefs and I’m impressed by the way you defend your beliefs with charity. Pax tecum.
Click to expand...

I have misinterpreted the document if that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that I am outside of Salvation. I don’t think I have misinterpreted though. I thank you for your kind words. I will say the same of you. I have been told and been warned of what may come. Therefore, I have knowledge. I don’t and haven’t accepted Catholicism. I agree with Catholics on some issues. However, we disagree on others.
 
bjcros said:
The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

It says that I am outside of Salvation despite of my acceptance of Christ. This is not a mere misinterpretation. I am a protestant and as such I am considered a schismatic. Was it infallible? Also in the council of Trent the church condemns Protestants, by listing Protestant beliefs and saying that we are anathemas and are outside of Salvation. So how then can Catholics say that it doesn’t condemn protestants
Click to expand...

If you or anyone else knows without any doubt that the Catholic Church is the true Church established by Christ and makes the free choice to refuse to return to her or enter her fold. Then you are toast.
 
posted by bjcros
I have misinterpreted the document if that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that I am outside of Salvation. I don’t think I have misinterpreted though. I thank you for your kind words. I will say the same of you. I have been told and been warned of what may come. Therefore, I have knowledge. I don’t and haven’t accepted Catholicism. I agree with Catholics on some issues. However, we disagree on others.
Click to expand...
As it appears you do not yet see that the Catholic Church "is the true Church established by Christ and makes the free choice to refuse to return to her or enter her fold. " You may not yet be toast.

But continue to pray that God will lead you to all truth, no matter where the truth may be.😉

God Bless,
Maria
 
Axiombob,

You may wish to go here: newadvent.org/
I typed in a search for Victor 1 and found this article that discusses the issue. Although it cannot be sure what happened, Victor never officially taught and declared the teachings of Montanism as true. Read for yourself here. newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

I am sure if you search each and everyone of these issues you will find a similar story. A pope may have held a personal opinion, but the Holy Spirit prevented it from being taught as church doctrine.

I would second, (third and fourth?) those that said you need to understand better what exactly infallibility is and what it isn’t.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Swiss Guard:
The Council of Trent’s condemnation of Protestant beliefs is addressed to those Catholics-turned-Protestant at the time of the reformation. Anyone who believes the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ and remains outside of it is outside of salvation. If you would like more information click the following link.
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/part3.html
Click to expand...
Yo, Swiss! You hit the key point here. The situation with most Protestants today is that they grow up completely surrounded with their own tradition (oh-oh, is that a dirty word?) and do not perceive their Protestantism as a rebellion against Christ’s plan for his people. This, as you point out, mitigates culpability.

But, as you also state, once a person has discovered that the Church founded by Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” Dominus Iesus] and yet remains willfully outside her, that person is rejecting Truth, and thereby rejecting Christ himself.
 
Axiombob,

While infallibility is certainly an important feature of the Church, a more important feature to my mind is authority and a study of this will be much more edifying because discussions about infallibility are usually based on non-Catholics scouring Church documents looking for so much as a misplaced semicolon and asking us to explain the supposed contradiction. Such a mode could go on forever.

I recommend Mark Shea’s astonishing By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition.

Scott
 
Steven Merten:
." Should you not base your desicion on Jesus will to have one person in unequaled authority over His followers?
Click to expand...
Hi Steven,
Yes he should. That person is the Holy Spirit, Christ Himself in God.
We should really start to think about more than the flesh. Think about Christ, who lives with a body just like you and I. Have faith.
Walk in love
edwinG
 
40.png
Axiombob:
Someone, please help me with this quote. I am considering conversion to Catholocism, but my protestant friends direct me to things for which I have no answer. The following quote is designed to demonstrate why Papal Infallibility cannot be true.

“Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it. Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monotheism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures-human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess. Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the ‘great defender of the Deity of Christ,’ and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat. …Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it. The list of such errors is quite lengthy, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove our point.”

from allaboutreligion.org/Pope-John-Paul-II.htm
Click to expand...
VICTOR:
“During the pontificate of Victor a rich Christian, Theodotus the Leather-seller, came from Constantinople to Rome and taught false doctrines concerning Christ, Whom he declared to be merely a man endowed by the Holy Ghost, at baptism, with supernatural power. The pope condemned this heresy and excluded Theodotus from the Church. The latter, however, would not submit, but, together with his adherents, formed a schismatic party, which maintained itself for a time at Rome. Victor may also have come into contact with the Montanists. Tertullian reports (“Ad Praceam”, 1) that a Roman bishop, whose name he does not give, had declared his acceptance of the prophecies of Montanus, but had been persuaded by Praxeas to withdraw. Duchesne (“Histoire ancienne de l’église”, I, 278) and others think Tertullian means Pope Eleutherius, but many investigators consider it more probable that he meant Pope Victor, because the latter had had much to do with the inhabitants of Asia Minor, and because, between 190 and 200, Praceas had gone from Rome to Carthage, where he was opposed by Tertullian. The question cannot be decided positively.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm
So, ALL this Victor allegation is just speculation & hearsay. There is no proof of it. NEXT!!

HONORIUS:
Indeed, Monotheism isn’t a heresy. :rolleyes: If your friends want to bash us, they need to get it right. I think what they are TRYING very poorly to condemn can be found (complete with reply as well as reconciliation) here newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm NEXT!!!
 
40.png
Axiombob:
Someone, please help me with this quote. I am considering conversion to Catholocism, but my protestant friends direct me to things for which I have no answer. The following quote is designed to demonstrate why Papal Infallibility cannot be true.
Click to expand...
Hi Axiombob,
Here is some more truth. I have posted it else where on the list but in case you miss it.
Peter was handed the keys and I believe this is where the claim to infallibility comes from. Additionally he and all of the apostles were given the authority to bind and loose.
But Peter was not infallible. See how he played the hypocrit and by doing so led others away from the true faith.
The keys and the ability to bind and loose were for Peter and the apostles to put in place a societal law to protect all those who live on earth, who were not followers of the Holy Spirit.
See the law before, the law of limitations which limited the amount of revenge you could take on someone who harmed you, ( really it was given in mercy) an eye for an eye, was too harsh. Now Jesus filled up the law so that in Christ you could not take revenge, you could not even be angry, lo you had to forgive. Only Noah, Daniel and Job managed to live up to the law of limitations and Job said God visited him everyday.
Now the law has been fullfilled in Christ and it still is in complete force. How can we possibly comply. Easy, Follow the Holy Spirit because the laws now are for the spiritual world and we can not even go close without Spiritual help.
But most people are not following the Holy Spirit and dont have His protection. Hence the keys to Peter and the power to bind and loose. They set up a societal law to protect all peoples until they recognised the truth and accepted the Holy Spirit to protect them and strengthen them.
See how marvelous this has worked. Even non Christian countries base their laws on these Christian values which God has given to protect His people until they submit and come to Him.
How almighty is His wisdom and His love for us.
We need to thank Peter and the apostles too for establishing this merciful law otherwise we would be between an eye for an eye law or the fulfilled law without protection for those who did not have the Holy Spirit in Christ.
walk in love
edwinG
 
Marcellinus: Did no such thing. It’s not proovable, anyway. They are relying on rumours. He was never convicted of this.

Read up more on the newadvent site. It’ll answer all the questions and more. From what I read, it appears that all these acusations are alledged at best and wild rumours at worst. The list of errors only shows that these people have either not really researched this OR they are outright liars. BELIEVE me, research all this for yourself and show it to yourself and your friends that this website is bunk and isn’t reporting the FACTS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top