Which Church is Right?


#1

Here is a quote taken from an eastern orthodox website:

"But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15)."
See: orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

Same argument the Roman Catholic church makes. So how can both be right? Each one believes the other departed from apostolic tradition, however they both claim to uphold the apostolic traditions and make as their arguement the idea that God will keep the church on the right path. So obviously God couldn’t the above couldn’t be true of both.

From my own studies I would tend to agree with the Eastern Orthodox on several issues, in which I believe they stayed true to apolostic doctrine and where the RC departed paths. However I can say I also see where the EO have added at least one tradition which is not apostolic such as iconography. If both can make the same claims about God leading them, but each exclude the other, then why couldn’t both be misguided? It appears that in light of the two ancient streams tracing their roots back to Christ that it is moot to even make your appeals to ancient history.

Now something that is disturbing to me is partially the fact that Catholics are so condemning of protestants for example. I mean in light of the RC’s own history of blood shed, corruption and the fact that outside observers see all this and are also faced with the split between east and west, I would think you folks could be a little more humble in your dealings with non-catholics. Let me put it another way, after looking into some of what RC is and what EO is it makes one wonder why they even should be one or the other.

Jeff


#2

[quote=jphilapy]Same argument the Roman Catholic church makes. So how can both be right? Each one believes the other departed from apostolic tradition, however they both claim to uphold the apostolic traditions and make as their arguement the idea that God will keep the church on the right path.
[/quote]

There should be one flock and one shepherd, and we should all be one; it makes most sense to be united under Rome. However, both maintain apostolic succession, and each has a disagreement with the other about the nature of the Church. They are both right in that both have apostolic succession. I think the Orthodox are wrong in not submitting to the Pope; they claim some kind of ‘first among equals’ argument for the papacy. But ‘equals’ can’t resolve theological issues dogmatically.

It appears that in light of the two ancient streams tracing their roots back to Christ that it is moot to even make your appeals to ancient history.

The ecclesiology is the telling point among schismatics. There is always among them some strange idea about what “Church” really is. What makes sense is that the Church is monarchical and hierarchical. Protestants, SSPX, and Orthodox all have various other notions: branch theory, me-and-the-Bible, eternal Rome, primitive church, and first-among-equals are all theories put forward that have the effect of skirting organizational obedience. It seems to me that skirting organizational obedience always offers the advantage of protecting pet ideas: that the Real Presence is ‘repugnant’, that Vatican II is dicey theology, that the Tridentine is the “true mass”, that the Trinity is constructed in one vs. another way, etc. There is always a pet idea to go along with the ecclesiological theory. But if we have diverse pet ideas, we’re not really one, are we.

Now something that is disturbing to me is partially the fact that Catholics are so condemning of protestants for example.

The Catholic Church is not condemning of protestants, but is concerned for the flock; people are sinners and they do bad things. But the Church presently tries to reach out in a variety of ways, and tries to emphasize what is good in other religions generally.


#3

Originally Quoted by jphilapy:

Now something that is disturbing to me is partially the fact that Catholics are so condemning of protestants for example. I mean in light of the RC’s own history of blood shed, corruption and the fact that outside observers see all this and are also faced with the split between east and west, I would think you folks could be a little more humble in your dealings with non-catholics. Let me put it another way, after looking into some of what RC is and what EO is it makes one wonder why they even should be one or the other.

I will definitely agree with you that, especially during the Reformation, Catholics condemned Protestants. However, I think you also have to recognize the Protestant condemnation of Catholics (see England and Ireland).

Regarding the corruption and blood shed in the Catholic Church: God never promised that his Church would be perfect. The Books of Kings demonstrate how, even after several malevolent Jewish rulerships, God still maintained the Jews as his own people. Just an idea to dwell upon.

While I can’t speak for all Catholics, I do believe that occassionally some Catholics may be a little less humble than they should be. However, I think the same can be said of many evangelical leaders–especially the zeleaous ones.

Another thought to consider: Catholics consider most evangelicals as Christian–and even members of the Church, albeit “imperfect.”; but many evangelical groups do not consider Catholics Christian. Some even go so far to consider Catholics as pagan, as though Catholics are completely unlike the first Christians.

Overall, I think you make some good points; but I think that it works both ways.

Anyhow, to answer your major question: how does one tell which one is the real Church? I’m honestly still looking into that question myself. But you know what…neither the apostles nor Christ asked that Christians create actual church buildings, fill our churches with flowers, meet every Sunday, nor annually celebrate Easter. And yet most Christian churches do that…


#4

I don’t know… nicely put :slight_smile: So if you remove all that, then what do you have left? A touchable Christ sitting amongst normal people in fellowship and love?

Jeff


#5

[quote=FrmrTrad]There should be one flock and one shepherd, and we should all be one; it makes most sense to be united under Rome. However, both maintain apostolic succession, and each has a disagreement with the other about the nature of the Church. They are both right in that both have apostolic succession. I think the Orthodox are wrong in not submitting to the Pope; they claim some kind of ‘first among equals’ argument for the papacy. But ‘equals’ can’t resolve theological issues dogmatically.The ecclesiology is the telling point among schismatics. There is always among them some strange idea about what “Church” really is. What makes sense is that the Church is monarchical and hierarchical. Protestants, SSPX, and Orthodox all have various other notions: branch theory, me-and-the-Bible, eternal Rome, primitive church, and first-among-equals are all theories put forward that have the effect of skirting organizational obedience. It seems to me that skirting organizational obedience always offers the advantage of protecting pet ideas: that the Real Presence is ‘repugnant’, that Vatican II is dicey theology, that the Tridentine is the “true mass”, that the Trinity is constructed in one vs. another way, etc. There is always a pet idea to go along with the ecclesiological theory. But if we have diverse pet ideas, we’re not really one, are we.The Catholic Church is not condemning of protestants, but is concerned for the flock; people are sinners and they do bad things. But the Church presently tries to reach out in a variety of ways, and tries to emphasize what is good in other religions generally.
[/quote]

Most Orthodox would accept that historically there was a Petrine primacy. This primacy has evolved from that of the early Church , the issue for today is to find a model of petrine primacy acceptable to East and West. The Orthodox object to supremacy, not primacy, generally. Fr Ambrose on these boards for example has stated he welcomes Vat II’s focus on collegiality of the bishops. Pope JPII has asked for responses from protestant and Orthodox Church’s in Ut Unum Sint - vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Personally I believe eastern and western Christianity are complimentary ways of expressing the same faith and we are journeying on our way to recognising we, Catholic and Orthodox, hold the essentials of the Apostolic faith, (if not to the entire satisfaction of each other side, perhaps). I pray the day we will be in communion again will be soon, but expect we and our children will be long dead before that day comes…

If any fierce Latin traditionalists fancy attacking me for the above, could I ask they read Orientale Lumen vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html first. Thanks.


#6

[quote=FrmrTrad]There should be one flock and one shepherd, and we should all be one; it makes most sense to be united under Rome. .
[/quote]

I agree generally with your post, pehaps united ‘with’ or ‘through’ Rome might be a better way of expression?


#7

[quote=jphilapy]I don’t know… nicely put :slight_smile: So if you remove all that, then what do you have left? A touchable Christ sitting amongst normal people in fellowship and love?

Jeff
[/quote]

So, you think these things actually HINDER an open relationship with Christ? :whacky: ANyone who wants an open relationship with Christ can have one. Whoever hides behind things like religious holidays, big expensive buildings, unusually priestly attire, antiquated ceremonies, “forced” celebacy, is just looking for an exuse not to have a relationship with Christ. I have a wonderful, open relationship with the Lord BECAUSE of these things. Because doctrine is already figured out for me, I can spend more of my time in prayerful obedience than wasting my time trying to refute notions that are 2,000 years old.


#8

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]So, you think these things actually HINDER an open relationship with Christ? :whacky: ANyone who wants an open relationship with Christ can have one. Whoever hides behind things like religious holidays, big expensive buildings, unusually priestly attire, antiquated ceremonies, “forced” celebacy, is just looking for an exuse not to have a relationship with Christ. I have a wonderful, open relationship with the Lord BECAUSE of these things. Because doctrine is already figured out for me, I can spend more of my time in prayerful obedience than wasting my time trying to refute notions that are 2,000 years old.
[/quote]

I am simply saying that the work of Christ on this planet for 3 years did not include any of that and it worked fine for him. So the essentials of what is needed can be found in the model of what Christ did. Hence he made disciples. How? Via close nit relationships. And I am convinced that the apostles carried on the same model.

Jeff


#9

[quote=jphilapy]Here is a quote taken from an eastern orthodox website:

"But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15)."
See: orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

Same argument the Roman Catholic church makes. So how can both be right? Each one believes the other departed from apostolic tradition, however they both claim to uphold the apostolic traditions and make as their arguement the idea that God will keep the church on the right path. So obviously God couldn’t the above couldn’t be true of both.

From my own studies I would tend to agree with the Eastern Orthodox on several issues, in which I believe they stayed true to apolostic doctrine and where the RC departed paths. However I can say I also see where the EO have added at least one tradition which is not apostolic such as iconography. If both can make the same claims about God leading them, but each exclude the other, then why couldn’t both be misguided? It appears that in light of the two ancient streams tracing their roots back to Christ that it is moot to even make your appeals to ancient history.

Now something that is disturbing to me is partially the fact that Catholics are so condemning of protestants for example. I mean in light of the RC’s own history of blood shed, corruption and the fact that outside observers see all this and are also faced with the split between east and west, I would think you folks could be a little more humble in your dealings with non-catholics. Let me put it another way, after looking into some of what RC is and what EO is it makes one wonder why they even should be one or the other.

Jeff
[/quote]

Who has the successor of Peter?


#10

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]Who has the successor of Peter?
[/quote]

That all depends on how much weight you give to the whole idea of succession. I for one tend to think that what matters is that the person follows the apostolic tradition. If that is the case then it wouldn’t matter who succeeds who. And the apostolic tradition can be found in scripture.

Jeff


#11

[quote=jphilapy]Here is a quote taken from an eastern orthodox website:

"But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15)."
See: orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

Same argument the Roman Catholic church makes. So how can both be right? Each one believes the other departed from apostolic tradition, however they both claim to uphold the apostolic traditions and make as their arguement the idea that God will keep the church on the right path. So obviously God couldn’t the above couldn’t be true of both.

From my own studies I would tend to agree with the Eastern Orthodox on several issues, in which I believe they stayed true to apolostic doctrine and where the RC departed paths. However I can say I also see where the EO have added at least one tradition which is not apostolic such as iconography. If both can make the same claims about God leading them, but each exclude the other, then why couldn’t both be misguided? It appears that in light of the two ancient streams tracing their roots back to Christ that it is moot to even make your appeals to ancient history.

Now something that is disturbing to me is partially the fact that Catholics are so condemning of protestants for example. I mean in light of the RC’s own history of blood shed, corruption and the fact that outside observers see all this and are also faced with the split between east and west, I would think you folks could be a little more humble in your dealings with non-catholics. Let me put it another way, after looking into some of what RC is and what EO is it makes one wonder why they even should be one or the other.

Jeff
[/quote]

Most excellent post! Let me just throw this into the mix. From Paul to the Ephesians 4:4-6, 4 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 **one **Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all”. If there is only one of each of these, there would not be enough to go around for all of the denominations in the world would you agree? Agree or not, it does not change the fact that there is only one God and we all have to share him. The term “body” in the scripture implies “church” and there is only **one **C’mon people Kindergarten101, Let’s share God not doctrine. Anyone who is a born again believer is a member of the a fore mentioned church.


#12

[quote=jphilapy]However I can say I also see where the EO have added at least one tradition which is not apostolic such as iconography.
[/quote]

You do err if you think that iconography is not apostolic. You need only visit the catacombs of Rome to see that iconography has been with the church since the beginning. There are three icons still in existance that were painted by the hand of St Luke the Evangelist. Also, if iconography is not apostolic, why does the seventh ecumenical council defend the veneration of icons?
It is Rome who has departed from Tradition by abandoning the rules of iconography and leaving the painting of religious images up to the imagination of the artists themselves. This is akin to allowing bible copyists to rewrite the Gospels in their own words, filling in details which they consider lacking according to their own thoughts and ideas.

John.


#13

[quote=prodromos]You do err if you think that iconography is not apostolic. You need only visit the catacombs of Rome to see that iconography has been with the church since the beginning. There are three icons still in existance that were painted by the hand of St Luke the Evangelist. Also, if iconography is not apostolic, why does the seventh ecumenical council defend the veneration of icons?
It is Rome who has departed from Tradition by abandoning the rules of iconography and leaving the painting of religious images up to the imagination of the artists themselves. This is akin to allowing bible copyists to rewrite the Gospels in their own words, filling in details which they consider lacking according to their own thoughts and ideas.

John.
[/quote]

Christians didn’t start hiding in catacombs till around the second century.


#14

I am simply saying that the work of Christ on this planet for 3 years did not include any of that and it worked fine for him. So the essentials of what is needed can be found in the model of what Christ did.

Christ did not have a Bible, certainly not a New Testament. Nor did he have a wife or children, nor a place to lay his head. I guess we Christians should have no New Testament, no sex, and no property. (There have been heretics in the past who have affirmed this.)

Don’t forget that Christ was also Jewish, and as such participated fully in the liturgical and ritual life of his people. And these rituals were themselves mandated by God, and were meant to prepare for Christ and His Church. So it makes sense that religious ritual would find its fulfillment in the true Church, along with everything else.

You do err if you think that iconography is not apostolic.

The veneration of images has its roots in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, but it is itself the product of a very long development. There was hardly, if any, veneration of images in the early Church, due to several factors.

You need only visit the catacombs of Rome to see that iconography has been with the church since the beginning.

There’s quite a leap from simply drawing religious pictures to the pomp and ceremony accompanying actual veneration of the image.


#15

For instance:

The development was then a question of genera fashion rather than of principle. To the Byzantine Christian of the fifth and sixth centuries prostrations, kisses, incense were the natural ways of showing honour to any one; he was used to such things, even applied to his civil and social superiors; he was accustomed to treat symbols in the same way, giving them relative honour that was obviously meant really for their prototypes. And so he carried his normal habits with him into church. Tradition, the conservative instinct that in ecclesiastical matters always insists or custom, gradually stereotyped such practices till they were written down as rubrics and became part of the ritual. Nor is there any suspicion that the people who were unconsciously evolving this ritual, confused the image with its prototype or forgot that to God only supreme homage is due. The forms they used were as natural to them as saluting a flag is to us.

At the same time one must admit that just before the Iconoclast outbreak things had gone very far in the direction of image-worship. Even then it is inconceivable that any one, except perhaps the most grossly stupid peasant, could have thought that an image could hear prayers, or do anything for us. And yet the way in which some people treated their holy icons argues more than the merely relative honour that Catholics are taught to observe towards them. In the first place images had multiplied to an enormous extent everywhere, the walls of churches were covered inside from floor to roof with icons, scenes from the Bible, allegorical groups. (An example of this is S. Maria Antiqua, built in the seventh century in the Roman Forum, with its systematic arrangement of paintings covering the whole church. Icons, especially in the East, were taken on journeys as a protection, they marched at the head of armies, and presided at the races in the hippodrome; they hung in a place of honour in every room, over every shop; they covered cups, garments, furniture, rings; wherever a possible space was found, it was filled with a picture of Christ, our Lady, or a saint. It is difficult to understand exactly what those Byzantine Christians of the seventh and eighth centuries thought about them. The icon seems to have been in some sort the channel through which the saint was approached; it has an almost sacramental virtue in arousing sentiments of faith, love and so on, in those who gazed upon it; through and by the icon God worked miracles, the icon even seems to have had a kind of personality of its own, inasmuch as certain pictures were specially efficacious for certain graces. Icons were crowned with garlands, incensed, kissed. Lamps burned before them, hymns were sung in their honour. They were applied to sick persons by contact, set out in the path of a fire or flood to stop it by a sort of magic. In many prayers of this time the natural inference from the words would be that the actual picture is addressed.

If so much reverence was paid to ordinary images “made with hands”, how much more was given to the miraculous ones “not made with hands” (eikones acheiropoietai). Of these there were many that had descended miraculously from heaven, or – like the most famous of all at Edessa – had been produced by our Lord Himself by impressing His face on a cloth. (The story of the Edessa picture is the Eastern form of our Veronica legend).


#16

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Christ did not have a Bible, certainly not a New Testament. Nor did he have a wife or children, nor a place to lay his head. I guess we Christians should have no New Testament, no sex, and no property. (There have been heretics in the past who have affirmed this.)

[/quote]

Christ did have the bible, he had the old testament scriptures and as a matter of fact he knew them well. And even though he is God and the argument can be made that he didn’t need to read them, it was normal for the average jew to have the torah memorized by the age of 13.

And btw you are loading extra words into my point. And I especially did not teach marriage is wrong. I am referring to what Paul says when he says that he lived among the saints, and that he discipled them by his own example. He got that from Christ because that is what Christ did. He was doing what was handed down to him. And he likewise handed it down to others when he commanded, what ever you have seen in me, or heard etc, do. And follow me as I follow Christ etc. So if anything hinders that process then it is to be excluded. Now I cannot speak on behalf of the catholic Church as I am not real familar with it but I do know that in the protestant church all those things (meaning the trappings etc) hinder the making of disciples. Folks are more concerned about programs, entertainment, building buildings that they forget why they are there.

Now ANYTHING that hinders the making of disciples in the way that Christ and Paul made disciples, that is by example via relational, then it is hindering an apostolic tradition.

Jeff


#17

and

The Emperor Michael II (820-9), in his letter to Louis the Pious, describes the excesses of the image worshippers:

[quote]They have removed the holy cross from the churches and replaced it by images before which they burn incense… They sing psalms before these images, prostrate themselves before them, implore their help. Many dress up images in linen garments and choose them as godparents for their children. Others who become monks, forsaking the old tradition – according to which the hair that is cut off is received by some distinguished person – let it fall into the hands of some image. Some priests scrape the paint off images, mix it with the consecrated bread and wine and give it to the faithful. Others place the body of the Lord in the hands of images from which it is taken by the communicants. Others again, despising the churches, celebrate Divine Service in private houses, using an image as an altar (Mansi, XIV, 417-22).

These are the words of a bitter Iconoclast, and should, no doubt, be received with caution. Nevertheless most of the practices described by the emperor can be established by other and quite unimpeachable evidence. For instance, St. Theodore of the Studion writes to congratulate an official of the court for having chosen a holy icon as godfather for his son (P.G., XCIX 962-3).
[/quote]

There are three icons still in existance that were painted by the hand of St Luke the Evangelist.

No serious historian believes this.

It is Rome who has departed from Tradition by abandoning the rules of iconography and leaving the painting of religious images up to the imagination of the artists themselves.

Now you’re just being foolish. The so-called “rules of iconography” were never meant to be static, set-in-stone, or binding on all Christians in all times and places. The West has never had such “official rules,” much less been bound by the ones Byzantine iconographers follow; it’s always been popular custom that’s prevailed. And the same goes for all the non-Byzantine Eastern Churches, for whom Orthodox iconography, as you know it, is not “traditional.”

And even the Byzantines know this. That is why Moscow’s Cathedral of the Dormition has an iconic frescoe depicting God the Father as an Old Man, the Ancient of Days, though “traditional” iconography forbids such representations of God the Father.

This is akin to allowing bible copyists to rewrite the Gospels in their own words, filling in details which they consider lacking according to their own thoughts and ideas.

Now you’ve gone from foolish to moronic, possibly heretical/blsphemous. Get a grip.

[How ironic to have an Eastern Christian tell us Latin how to do iconography. *Our Church has never disputed the lawfulness of making and venerating images; and, as usual, she had to put your Church back in her place when she persecutued those within her who did venerate the images.]


#18

And btw you are loading extra words into my point. And I especially did not teach marriage is wrong. I am referring to what Paul says when he says that he lived among the saints, and that he discipled them by his own example. He got that from Christ because that is what Christ did. He was doing what was handed down to him. And he likewise handed it down to others when he commanded, what ever you have seen in me, or heard etc, do. And follow me as I follow Christ etc. So if anything hinders that process then it is to be excluded. Now I cannot speak on behalf of the catholic Church as I am not real familar with it but I do know that the protestant church all those things hinder the making of disciples. Now ANYTHING that hinders the making of disciples in the way that Christ and Paul made disciples, that is by example via relational, then it is hindering an apostolic tradition.

Again, Christ did not have a Bible. The “Old Testament” is not the Bible, and certainly not the most important part of it.

I was just taking your philophical minimalism to its logical conclusion.

Apostolic Tradition is not something static, but living. The faith does not change, but it’s various doctrines to become more nuanced, and its visible expressions change over time. It’s the same thing that happens to a baby who grows into adulthood. He remains the same person, but becomes more and more what he is made to be.The same happens to the Church who is, as it were, a mystical organism.


#19

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Again, Christ did not have a Bible. The “Old Testament” is not the Bible, and certainly not the most important part of it.

I was just taking your philophical minimalism to its logical conclusion.

Apostolic Tradition is not something static, but living. The faith does not change, but it’s various doctrines to become more nuanced, and its visible expressions change over time. It’s the same thing that happens to a baby who grows into adulthood. He remains the same person, but becomes more and more what he is made to be.The same happens to the Church who is, as it were, a mystical organism.
[/quote]

If you want to get techincal the word bible means books. Maybe Christ didn’t call it a bible, maybe he didn’t refer to it as books, but he did understand it to be many different writings. And he had it.

Regarding my statement about Christ making disciples and your comment of static, i have to say that Christ new what he was doing and didn’t need us to perfect it. If there is anything that needs perfecting then it is our own understanding.

As far as the whole making disciples deal goes, it is based on how a family is raised in accordance to God’s commands. This isn’t prefected. As a matter of fact one thing Christ did when he was here was show us how to Love. Hence the core of discipleship and the family. Hence the family of God.


#20

If you want to get techincal the word bible means books. Maybe Christ didn’t call it a bible, maybe he didn’t refer to it as books, but he did understand it to be many different writings. And he had it.

Really, he had the 27 books of the New Testament, including the Four Gospels, which are the meat of the Christian Bible?! Woah!

Regarding my statement about Christ making disciples and your comment of static, i have to say that Christ new what he was doing and didn’t need us to perfect it. If there is anything that needs perfecting then it is our own understanding.

Christ’s work was, in a sense, uncompleted when he Ascended into Heaven. This is why he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The Spirit preserves the Church from teaching error, and all the while leads her to a deeper understanding of the teaching of Christ. Christ planted the seed of the Kingdom (i.e. the Church), and tends his Church by the Spirit.

And this growth, as I noted, manifests itself visibly, not just abstractly in theology.

Otherwise, as I noted, we would not today have a New Testament.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.