Christian Forums

To look back at different times and places in history and see how things could possibly work out --

In such a way that a powerful entity like the Catholic Church  could possibly get into a position over a civil population --

To dominate, bully, abuse, attempt mind control, rake in more money than ever, legislate by fiat or by having powerful people in place in governement, etc. --

That position, if that is what mistergus is worried about -- That position you cannot destroy, people.  It's happened before and it may happen again.

It's not just a Catholic pattern; un-Catholic religious groups/trends have risen to and abused what had been or what should have been secular power.  Heck, ideologies that weren't supposed to be "religious" have evolved into de facto abusive religions, IMO, if only because of their power structure and efforts at mind control, etc.

But -- to say that at argument about that pattern, that possibility, has been "destroyed", is a little airheaded. 

Now -- y'all can throw documents at each other all you want to, and each side stand up and say to the other, "Nyaaah, nyaaah, I'm right and you're wrong", all day long.  And you can tell each other your document trumps the other guy's document, or your interpretation of the document(s) trumps the other guy's sadly limited intellectual capacity to understand what he's reading...

Is that what y'all are saying?

But -- if only because it has happened before, humans and governments being what they are -- I contend that the argument mistergus is trying to make cannot be totally refuted.

is this *sensored* still going around? what a complete waste of words. Who cares what is written on all these worthless documents, and even what is written on their hearts (if it is even true the the Catholics want to take over the world) who has ever beaten God at this game? Some held power for a while, but no one kept domination over the world in a physical manner or a spiritual manner. Last I checked God is still in control, or did i miss a memo? So if God is in control of HIS CHURCH why all the fuss about it, it has been plagued full of false prophets and whores throughout the generations, satan even sending demons to attempt to destroy it and that has not happened, so I think God has got this one people. let go and let God!


Quote:
"the Catholic church is not the power of the church, have we all forgotten who has defeated the enemy and who the enemy is? who is it sitting at the right hand of God?

IF, the church in America looses its freedom it will not be because of the Catholic church, but rather because God allowed us to have our religious freedom takin away, and why? Because we are either asleep (cold) or lukewarm. And if God chooses to use the Catholic church to do so, then that would be His choose. But this is all hinged on 'IF" God chooses to do so, and 'IF' He uses that vichicle to do so, but He could use birds or even stones to do so, if He wanted. But the bottom line, no one can take our freedom unless God allows it to happen.
[/quote]

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 06:43:52
You must be blind.  Did you catch the following:

"The Catholic Church recognizes unreservedly the inviolability of constitutions confirmed by oath, of traditional laws and regular religious compacts, because a breach of the constitution, of allegiance, of a treaty, or of an oath is a grievous sin, and because the Christian moral law prescribes fidelity to the State as an obligation strictly binding in conscience."

Yes, I caught it.

All it says is that the church have to live with the present laws of a state as long as it has no choice.  How about you?  Are you blind?  Did you not catch...


"In some countries, Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, resigned at being forced to cohabitate where they alone should rightfully be allowed to live.  But in doing this the Church will not renounce here thesis, which remains the most imperative of her laws, but merely adapt herself to de facto conditions which must be taken into account in practical affairs...The Church cannot blush for her own want of tolerance as she asserts it in principle and applies it in practice.

AND THE NONSENSE GOES ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON....WHAT A WASTE!

It has come to my attention that I am talking to a brick wall.  I am out.  On to the next topic...

I keep up with what's going on in the Catholic Church by a regular viewing of EWTN and by reading Catholic books. I think I can safely say that the American Catholic Church is split between conservatives, moderates and liberals. Basically, the Catholic Church in America is too fractured to gain control, assuming it even wanted such control. Conservative/Moderate Catholics, represented by EWTN, are too busy with such internal struggles to want to take over anyone.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official Vatican position is that Protestants are saved Christians, albeit not possessing the fullness of the faith that Rome does. They'd be thrilled if we all converted, but don't see a real pressing need to do so.

The countries where the Catholic Church seems to be gaining the strongest headway are in third-world countries.

I respect the late Bro. Barrett, but in his views on Catholicism he was simply wrong. Campbell himself had similar fears in the 1830s and 40s, and he, too, was wrong. Everyone in the CoC was horrified that if JFK was elected the Vatican would take over America and that didn't happen, either, did it? It's all much ado about nothing. It's easier to villify the Catholic Church than it is to understand it. If you pigeonhole everyone who isn't like you as the enemy you don't have to bother with really understanding them or dealing honestly with them.

IMHO the most insidious enemy facing America is not Catholicism but secularism.

Pax.

I would suggest that pretty much any "-ism" is a threat.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 13:24:03
I respect the late Bro. Barrett, but in his views on Catholicism he was simply wrong. Campbell himself had similar fears in the 1830s and 40s, and he, too, was wrong. Everyone in the CoC was horrified that if JFK was elected the Vatican would take over America and that didn't happen, either, did it? It's all much ado about nothing. It's easier to villify the Catholic Church than it is to understand it. If you pigeonhole everyone who isn't like you as the enemy you don't have to bother with really understanding them or dealing honestly with them.

Lee,

You obviously haven't read the material.  Bro. Baxter is quoting Catholic sources, not non-Catholics.  The stated positions and doctrinal beliefs are clear.  They are not subject to interpretation.  They are what they are, they are undeniable.  If you want to ignore non-Catholics regarding the Catholic Church, fine.  But it's silly to dismiss Catholic authorities themselves, including the Popes.  Your credibility will suffer a major hit.  At least, among those who actually read.

Are we going to have to deal with these issues separately?  The Syllabus of Errors...The Doctrine of Mental Reservation...You'll never learn by keeping your head in the sand.

Robert G

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 12:40:21
It has come to my attention that I am talking to a brick wall.  I am out.  On to the next topic...

Running up against the truth can often feel like a brick wall, can't it?

Oh well, when you're ready to continue this discussion, we'll get into the "Syllabus of Errors", or perhaps..."The Doctrine of Mental Reservation."

Actually...maybe we need to anyway.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 17:30:47

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 13:24:03
I respect the late Bro. Barrett, but in his views on Catholicism he was simply wrong. Campbell himself had similar fears in the 1830s and 40s, and he, too, was wrong. Everyone in the CoC was horrified that if JFK was elected the Vatican would take over America and that didn't happen, either, did it? It's all much ado about nothing. It's easier to villify the Catholic Church than it is to understand it. If you pigeonhole everyone who isn't like you as the enemy you don't have to bother with really understanding them or dealing honestly with them.

Lee,

You obviously haven't read the material.  Bro. Baxter is quoting Catholic sources, not non-Catholics.  The stated positions and doctrinal beliefs are clear.  They are not subject to interpretation.  They are what they are, they are undeniable.  If you want to ignore non-Catholics regarding the Catholic Church, fine.  But it's silly to dismiss Catholic authorities themselves, including the Popes.  Your credibility will suffer a major hit.  At least, among those who actually read.

Are we going to have to deal with these issues separately?  The Syllabus of Errors...The Doctrine of Mental Reservation...You'll never learn by keeping your head in the sand.

Robert G

They're the Catholic views of 40 or 50 years ago, selectively quoted, not the views of the Catholic Church of today, post Vatican II. Or should we all be so naive as to think that nothing really changed in the Catholic Church as a result of Vatican II? That would be naive indeed. Because its simply a fact that Catholic thinking on many subjects has changed and evolved.

Bro. Baxter's "Cathophobic" views were shared by many Protestants, not just those in churches of Christ. They were a product of that era. No one seriously believes do they, that if John Kerry were ever elected president, the country would suddenly be taken over by the Vatican, any more than they believe that if Fred Thompson were elected the country would be suddenly be taken over by the Church of Christ?

From The Catechism of the Cathoilic Church, Part one, Article 9, Paragraph 3, Section I:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body-here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism-do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All those who have been justified by faith and Baptism are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of the grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, comunion with the Catholic Church."  With the Orthodox Churches, this comunion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."



Pax vobiscum.

Lee,

I appreciate these quotes acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church accepts that there are believers not among them.  So what?

There is nothing here to indicate that these non-Catholic believers will be allowed to practice their faith openly once a nation becomes majority Catholic.  In fact, the opposite is true.  The Roman Catholic authorities have made that clear enough.

Where has the Roman Catholic Church renounced it's plans to suppress religious freedoms for non-Catholics?  Until you can produce this, you've got nothing to say that matters.

I don't know why some of you keep throwing out long-winded red herrings that in fact do not address the issue.

Smoke and mirrors, I guess.

Robert G

Since some are trying (weakly) to deny the Roman Catholic Church intends to suppress religious freedoms, then they should be able to show where the Roman Church has renounced this pronouncement:


                                       Syllabus of Errors

     Pope Pius IX, in 1864, published a famous document entitled, Syllabus of Errors.  This document has been and still is a fundamental part of Roman doctrine and policy.  It contains these shocking declarations of policy:
"The State has not the right to leave every man free to profess and embrace whatever religion he shall deem true.
"It (the State) has not the right to exclude the pontiff or clergy from all dominion over temporal affairs.
"It (the State) has not the right to the entire direction of public schools.
"It (the State) has not the right to separate itself from the Church.
"It (the State) has not the right to uphold any marriage solemnized   otherwise than according to the form prescribed by the Council of Trent, even if solemnized according to a form sanctioned by civil law.

     After stating what the State may not do, then Pope Pius IX went on to state positively what the church could do.
"She (the Catholic Church) has the right to exercise her power without the permission or consent of the State.
"She has the right to employ force.
"She has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for the clergy and the Pope.
"She has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire government of public schools.
"She has the right of annulling marriages solemnized only by civil contract.
"She has the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others.
"She has the right to require the State not to permit free expression of opinion.



This is just for starters.  We'll cover some other Roman Catholic statements in the future.

Robert G

mistergus,

Putting aside the disagreements that have been expressed in this thread for a moment...

Now that you have defined what you believe to be the problem (that our religious freedoms are threatened by the RCC), what do you propose that we do about it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=HtECAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover

Invade the Vatican? F-16s and M-16s against the Swiss Guard?

Pax vobiscum.

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 17:00:01
Lee,

I appreciate these quotes acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church accepts that there are believers not among them.  So what?

There is nothing here to indicate that these non-Catholic believers will be allowed to practice their faith openly once a nation becomes majority Catholic.  In fact, the opposite is true.  The Roman Catholic authorities have made that clear enough.

Where has the Roman Catholic Church renounced it's plans to suppress religious freedoms for non-Catholics?  Until you can produce this, you've got nothing to say that matters.

I don't know why some of you keep throwing out long-winded red herrings that in fact do not address the issue.

Smoke and mirrors, I guess.

Robert G

Robert, do you really believe Benedict XVI is just biding his time until he can airlift Swiss Guardsmen into Washington, DC and take over the US Government? Seems to me like Pope John XXIII missed his chance when JFK was elected.

Pax vobiscum.

Yeah, mistergus, I have to say that the tenor of your posts about this has been just as frantic and despairing-sounding as those of many "end-timers" when they spread the word about the horrible happenings they expect are unfolding even now...

Exactly what would you have people do about the Catholic Church's intent to suck the life out of the religious freedoms we now enjoy?

(P.S. Lee Freeman -- don't you underestimate that Swiss Guard!   Just because they carry can openers on a stick and wear funny pants don't mean they're not formidable adversaries.)

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 17:11:00
in 1864

Does Roman Catholicism, today, still hold to these positions?

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 17:32:49

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 17:11:00
in 1864

Does Roman Catholicism, today, still hold to these positions?

That's what will be interesting to find out.  We're governed by a 225 year Consitution, aren't we?  And when part of it was voided (prohibition) it was amended to reflect that.

Upon reflection, I think rehashing numerous statements quoted in the Baxter tract would be unproductive (in the short term, anyway).  But I do intend to soon repost the Catholic "Doctrine of Mental Reservation", so we can explore whether the Roman Catholic Church still officially believes it's okay for it (the Church) to lie and state untruths.

Robert G

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 21:16:59
How crazy-making can you get?
Where is your evidence that the Catholic Church condones lying?

You really haven't been keeping up, have you?  You really haven't been reading the material, have you?  You haven't read the Catholic doctrine of "Mental Reservation", have you?

Don't worry.  I will educate you.

Robert G

If you believe that the Catholic Church condones lying and secretly wants to rule the world, how can you stand posting on a message board that not only welcomes Catholics as Christian, but (like the Early Church) uses a Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church to determine who is Christian and who is not Christian?

Isn't a bit hypocritical for you to post here if you do not agree with the rules of this board?

blessings

That makes me a maverick, then.

I do not welcome Catholics as Christians.

I welcome anyone who claims to belong to Jesus as a Christian, and will share what I know with them and see what they have to say about what they know.  If they happen to be Catholic, ah well, I won't hold it against them, being one myself.

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:09:12
If you believe that the Catholic Church condones lying and secretly wants to rule the world...

After this thread calms down, I'll post the Catholic "Doctrine of Mental Reservation".  Then we can explore the issue.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 17:11:00
Since some are trying (weakly) to deny the Roman Catholic Church intends to suppress religious freedoms, then they should be able to show where the Roman Church has renounced this pronouncement:


                                       Syllabus of Errors

     Pope Pius IX, in 1864, published a famous document entitled, Syllabus of Errors.  This document has been and still is a fundamental part of Roman doctrine and policy.  It contains these shocking declarations of policy:
"The State has not the right to leave every man free to profess and embrace whatever religion he shall deem true.
"It (the State) has not the right to exclude the pontiff or clergy from all dominion over temporal affairs.
"It (the State) has not the right to the entire direction of public schools.
"It (the State) has not the right to separate itself from the Church.
"It (the State) has not the right to uphold any marriage solemnized   otherwise than according to the form prescribed by the Council of Trent, even if solemnized according to a form sanctioned by civil law.

     After stating what the State may not do, then Pope Pius IX went on to state positively what the church could do.
"She (the Catholic Church) has the right to exercise her power without the permission or consent of the State.
"She has the right to employ force.
"She has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for the clergy and the Pope.
"She has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire government of public schools.
"She has the right of annulling marriages solemnized only by civil contract.
"She has the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others.
"She has the right to require the State not to permit free expression of opinion.



This is just for starters.  We'll cover some other Roman Catholic statements in the future.

Robert G

Actually Mistergus, the Syllabus of Errors you refer to does not state these things.  It has nothing to do with the desire to suppress freedom or dominate the world.  It is merely a collection of attitudes, philosophies, and religions that the Church deemed in error at that time and threatened the basic principles of Christianity.

You don't have any idea of what you are talking about.  I submit the link for those that wish to truly read what was stated by Pope Pius IX.  Although there may be some disagreements, I seriously doubt that many non-Catholics will have a problem with what he said.  For example, one of the things found in error:

"Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason."

This is just one attitude of that time period that the Pope specifically condemns.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

By the way, make sure you read within the context of the time period in which it was written...extremely important.

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:44:17

Quote from: janine on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:30:08
That makes me a maverick, then.  I do not welcome Catholics as Christians.  I welcome anyone who claims to belong to Jesus as a Christian, and will share what I know with them and see what they have to say about what they know.  If they happen to be Catholic, ah well, I won't hold it against them, being one myself.

(then ravenlorre quotes some of the rules of the Forum, esp. bits of Scripture-backed info drawn from the Nicene Creed)

Quote

QuoteYes, according to the rules of this forum, it does indeed.

blessings

Can you expound/expand a little bit, buddy?  I couldn't tell what you were getting at here.

Quote from: janine on Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 06:45:08

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:44:17

Quote from: janine on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:30:08
That makes me a maverick, then.  I do not welcome Catholics as Christians.  I welcome anyone who claims to belong to Jesus as a Christian, and will share what I know with them and see what they have to say about what they know.  If they happen to be Catholic, ah well, I won't hold it against them, being one myself.

(then ravenlorre quotes some of the rules of the Forum, esp. bits of Scripture-backed info drawn from the Nicene Creed)

Quote

QuoteYes, according to the rules of this forum, it does indeed.

blessings

Can you expound/expand a little bit, buddy?  I couldn't tell what you were getting at here.

Agreement with the Nicene Creed makes one a Catholic?

I don't get that.  I'm thinking there was a glitch, a dropped sentence in amongst the quotes maybe?

Quote from: janine on Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 06:45:08

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:44:17

Quote from: janine on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:30:08
That makes me a maverick, then.  I do not welcome Catholics as Christians.  I welcome anyone who claims to belong to Jesus as a Christian, and will share what I know with them and see what they have to say about what they know.  If they happen to be Catholic, ah well, I won't hold it against them, being one myself.

(then ravenlorre quotes some of the rules of the Forum, esp. bits of Scripture-backed info drawn from the Nicene Creed)

Quote

QuoteYes, according to the rules of this forum, it does indeed.

blessings

Can you expound/expand a little bit, buddy?  I couldn't tell what you were getting at here.

I believe ravenlorre was referring back to his prior statement:

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:09:12on a message board that not only welcomes Catholics as Christian, but (like the Early Church) uses a Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church to determine who is Christian and who is not Christian?

(Of course, the question of whether the Nicene Creed was "developed by the Roman Catholic Church" is debatable-- the Orthodox would say that they developed it.)

Quote from: DCR on Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 07:23:58

Quote from: janine on Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 06:45:08

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:44:17

Quote from: janine on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:30:08
That makes me a maverick, then.  I do not welcome Catholics as Christians.  I welcome anyone who claims to belong to Jesus as a Christian, and will share what I know with them and see what they have to say about what they know.  If they happen to be Catholic, ah well, I won't hold it against them, being one myself.

(then ravenlorre quotes some of the rules of the Forum, esp. bits of Scripture-backed info drawn from the Nicene Creed)

Quote

QuoteYes, according to the rules of this forum, it does indeed.

blessings

Can you expound/expand a little bit, buddy?  I couldn't tell what you were getting at here.

I believe ravenlorre was referring back to his prior statement:

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:09:12on a message board that not only welcomes Catholics as Christian, but (like the Early Church) uses a Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church to determine who is Christian and who is not Christian?

(Of course, the question of whether the Nicene Creed was "developed by the Roman Catholic Church" is debatable-- the Orthodox would say that they developed it.)

The Council of Nicea was presided over by a Copt.  The Coptic Church developed it.

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:09:12
If you believe that the Catholic Church condones lying and secretly wants to rule the world, how can you stand posting on a message board that not only welcomes Catholics as Christian, but (like the Early Church) uses a Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church to determine who is Christian and who is not Christian?

Isn't a bit hypocritical for you to post here if you do not agree with the rules of this board?

blessings

Not defending Robert (he'd prefer to do that himself)...but that's not the best argument.  After all, we all use the Old Testament Scriptures handed to us by Israel...a people surely imperfect ...many of whom who are now in denial of the Messiah for whom they waited.  So the fact one gleans some things even from those whom they believe to be in error isn't necessarily hypocrisy, now is it?

I assume, btw, you still enjoy the freedoms of the US Constitution and claim it as your own even though many of the men were terribly imperfect as well.  Does that make you a hypocrite?

Quote from: DCR on Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 07:23:58

Quote from: janine on Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 06:45:08

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:44:17

Quote from: janine on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:30:08
That makes me a maverick, then.  I do not welcome Catholics as Christians.  I welcome anyone who claims to belong to Jesus as a Christian, and will share what I know with them and see what they have to say about what they know.  If they happen to be Catholic, ah well, I won't hold it against them, being one myself.

(then ravenlorre quotes some of the rules of the Forum, esp. bits of Scripture-backed info drawn from the Nicene Creed)

Quote

QuoteYes, according to the rules of this forum, it does indeed.

blessings

Can you expound/expand a little bit, buddy?  I couldn't tell what you were getting at here.

I believe ravenlorre was referring back to his prior statement:

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 23:09:12on a message board that not only welcomes Catholics as Christian, but (like the Early Church) uses a Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church to determine who is Christian and who is not Christian?

(Of course, the question of whether the Nicene Creed was "developed by the Roman Catholic Church" is debatable-- the Orthodox would say that they developed it.)

Though it's a bit irrelevant. 

1) Rule 6.2 quoted above says we hold no creed but the Bible.  Therefore, while there is an adaptation of the Nicene Creed, it is not recognized "creedally."

2) Rule 6.3 clearly states that the Nicene Creed was based on principles from the Scriptures (not the "Catholic Church"), and goes on to show whereupon those beliefs are based.

(Well, yeah, but the point was being made re: what ravenlorre thought about the origins of the Creed, not whether or not we/GCM were following the Biblical portions of it as a creed ourselves.)




If I dropped participation and membership in any group I tried to take part in, as soon as I found out that I could only use part of what they support, within myself, because the rest I couldn't in good conscience support....

Well, not only would I have left behind any regular involvement with the Lord's church years ago, I'd also have left Louisiana, the United States, and Earth.

And I'm saying that using an old document in the rules doesn't mean necessarily everything she thinks it means.  In other words, using the Nicene statement neither makes the board members who believe the RCC to be in error hypocrites, nor does it issue a blanket statement that all who live in submission to the Pope of Rome are indeed Christians (it makes no statement that all members of any group are Christians).


Cheekiness--> And besides, a few posts ago you said you didn't know what she was saying!

I still don't.

I know what was said since then.

Then you're ahead of me.