Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Theological Deception in ["Christ Among Us" by Anthony Wilhelm]
http://www.scborromeo.org/ ^ | 1999 | James Seghers

Posted on 04/22/2011 6:08:21 AM PDT by verdugo

Theological Deception In his letter to the Colossians, St. Paul warns, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8). Failure to heed this admonition has been the cause of many of the errors currently embraced by Catholics. Theological deception has been a major contributor to the present state of doctrinal confusion.

Anthony J. Wilhelm's popular book "Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith" will serve to illustrate the diabolical craftiness of this fraud. This edition has a Nihil Obstat by Rev. Thomas G. Lumpkin Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur by John Cardinal Dearden, Archbishop of Detroit. On the page with the publication information is the following statement: "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error." The statement conditions the unsuspecting reader to believe that the content of Wilhelm's book is fully in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Such is not the case.


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: anthonywilhelm; wilhelm

1 posted on 04/22/2011 6:08:23 AM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: verdugo
It's an argument about the Eucharist and whether it is just a symbol or the actual body of Christ. Since the body of Christ is the Church and Christ himself Intercedes before the Father in heaven on behalf of believers; I side with the former, not with the latter.

For to reduce Christ to a wafer is to reduce him to an "elemental" thing, whereas He is not a created being, but "begotten of the Father, before all things".

2 posted on 04/22/2011 6:33:44 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

I think you need to read up on your Catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

PART TWO: THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
SECTION TWO THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER ONE THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
Article 3 THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
IN BRIEF

“1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).”


3 posted on 04/22/2011 7:19:32 AM PDT by thereverendjim04 (In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (George Orwell))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

“The statement conditions the unsuspecting reader to believe that the content of Wilhelm’s book is fully in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Such is not the case.”

Then “free of doctrinal or moral error” doesn’t mean free of doctrinal or moral error?



4 posted on 04/22/2011 9:39:24 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thereverendjim04; Mad Dawg; Amityschild; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; ...

HMMMMMMMM


I think you need to read up on your Catechism.

Undermining the Eucharist.

In Chapter 17, “The Eucharist in Christ’s Church Today” under the sub-heading “The
Mass and Christian Unity,” one finds the following statement. “In the Catholic view
the full sacramental sign of unity and grace comes about only through the
instrumentality of a priest, at Mass. Yet when the eucharist is celebrated in another
Church there is present in some way the reality of the eucharistic mystery; despite
the frequent lack of valid priestly orders which expresses the unity of the Church,
there is yet some real presence of Christ in these “other eucharists. A devout non-
Catholic receiving the eucharist in his church might have more of the reality of the
eucharist than a lukewarm Catholic.”2

.

There are several objectionable assertions found in this quotation. Wilhelm stresses
the sign value of the Blessed Eucharist without affirming that it is really Jesus’ body
and blood, soul and divinity. This is because Wilhelm has already rejected the
defined doctrine of transubstantiation. “When we say that the bread and wine
‘become Christ’ we are not saying that bread and wine are Christ, nor are we
practicing some sort of cannibalism when we take this in communion. What we
mean is that the bread and wine are a sign of Christ present, here, in a special waynot
in a mere physical way, as if condensed into a wafer; somehow his presence has
‘taken over’ the bread and wine, so that, for us who believe, it is no longer merely
bread that is present, but Christ himself.”3

.

Wilhelm also blurs the reality of Christ’s eucharistic presence after the words of
consecration in a valid Mass with the merely symbolic eucharists of “other
churches”. What does “some real presence of Christ” mean? Jesus is either physically

.

2

.

present in the Eucharist or he is not. The consecrated host is truly Jesus. An
unconsecrated host is merely bread.

.

Lastly, Wilhelm makes the reality of Christ’s eucharistic presence dependent on the
fervor of those attending the liturgical service. If the faith of a “devout non-Catholic”
brings about “more of the reality of the eucharist” than does that of a “lukewarm
Catholic,” it is logical to conclude that the faith of the congregation effects Christ’s
presence, not the words of consecration spoken by a validly ordained priest.

.

Wilhelm supports his astonishing statement by citing the Decree on Ecumenism, no.
22. Clearly, the author intends that the reader believe the Second Vatican Council
supports his assertions. This is a deception. Section 22 in the Decree on Ecumenism
has three paragraphs. The first paragraph affirms the validity of all properly
performed baptisms. The second paragraph asserts that baptism creates a
sacramental bond among all the baptized and is “ordained toward a complete
profession of faith.” The final paragraph states the following:

.

“Although the ecclesial communities separated from us [non-Catholic baptized
Christians] lack the fullness of unity with us which flows from baptism, and although
we believe they have not preserved the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in
its fullness [their eucharist is not the body of Christ], especially because of the
absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate the
Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in
communion with Christ and await his coming in glory. For these reasons, the
doctrine about the Lord’s Supper, about the other sacraments, worship, and
ministry in the Church, should form subjects of dialogue.”

.

Clearly, there is nothing in Decree on Ecumenism, no. 22 that supports
Wilhelm’s position.

.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

.

PART TWO: THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
SECTION TWO THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER ONE THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
Article 3 THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
IN BRIEF
.

“1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).”


5 posted on 04/22/2011 9:47:26 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Quix
The real presence of Christ is among us when two or three are gathered together,.....

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

Or when someone keeps Christ's words...

John 14:15-24 15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

18"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.

6 posted on 04/22/2011 9:57:35 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I’ll be gone for a few hours but when I come back I want this settled. O.K.?


7 posted on 04/22/2011 10:06:14 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: metmom

INDEED.


8 posted on 04/22/2011 10:14:14 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep MY WORD, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and MAKE OUR HOME with him.
Whoever does not love Me does not keep MY WORDS.
And THE WORD that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

9 posted on 04/22/2011 10:19:26 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Photobucket


.

CHRIST ALONE
IS
THE MIRACLE WORKER!




I'm merely


Photobucket

10 posted on 04/22/2011 10:20:51 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
IT IS FINISHED
for
It Is WRITTEN

11 posted on 04/22/2011 10:27:35 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Clearly, there is nothing in Decree on Ecumenism, no. 22 that supports Wilhelm’s position.

Clearly, there is nothing in GOD'S WORD that supports the Decree on Ecumenism.
12 posted on 04/22/2011 10:46:05 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

WELL PUT.

THX


13 posted on 04/22/2011 10:56:46 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sr4402; All
To reduce Christ to a wafer is blasphemy since Christ died once for ALL sins: past sins; present sins; future sins (for all our sins were future in A.D. c. 30).

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for [all] sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God.

Hebrews 10:11 But every priest [sic] standetf daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS.

That is the lot for today also if a priest oftentimes offers the same sacrifices of Christ on the cross.

14 posted on 04/22/2011 12:00:53 PM PDT by bibletruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bibletruth
To reduce Christ to a wafer is blasphemy since Christ died once for ALL sins: past sins; present sins; future sins (for all our sins were future in A.D. c. 30).

That is correct. Not only is it blaspheming who Christ is, but it is committing Idolatry; worshiping a created thing rather than the Creator.

15 posted on 04/22/2011 12:45:29 PM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: verdugo; wideawake
Ah yes, that's the book used by my RCIA program in 1983-84. I still have my copy.

It stinks. It is also the quintessential snapshot of what is wrong with the Catholic Church, not just in "liberal dioceses" but throughout the western world.

I sometimes wonder where conservative Catholics (such as those on FR who are so insistent that the problem does not exist outside "liberal dioceses") go to church. The Twilight Zone, perhaps?

16 posted on 04/22/2011 1:09:13 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Hachodesh hazeh lakhem ro'sh chodashim; ri'shon hu' lakhem lechodshey hashanah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Your humidity is impressive.


17 posted on 04/22/2011 1:34:20 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
I have no opinion on the work being discussed in this link, but in reading it I found some troubling arguments being presented by the author which may themselves be heretical. Consider the following:
Jesus is either physically present in the Eucharist or he is not. The consecrated host is truly Jesus. An unconsecrated host is merely bread.
Here the author insinuates that the Lord is "physically present in the Eucharist" but this is not Catholic teaching, and actually is an heretical contradiction of it. The Catholic Church has most explicitly described the presence of Christ in the Sacrament in the doctrine of transubstantiation which states that the accidents of the bread remain those of bread while the substance becomes that of Christ. Accidents are the physical properties of something whereas its substance is what it truly is. By this teaching the Church is clearly stating that the physical nature of the bread remains that of bread, while the substance, i.e. what it really is, becomes the Body of Christ.

This is very significant. Look at the Blessed Sacrament under a microscope and only bread would be seen. Study its molecular makeup and again only bread. Break it down to its constituent physical parts and all would be those of bread. No muscle, blood, bone or any human tissue whatsoever would ever be found. Why? Because physically it is unchanged, which is exactly what transubstantiation says happens. However, in spite of the physical properties we happen to know that it is not bread any longer because its substance has been changed. It is, in fact, the Body of Christ.

We Catholics do not believe and are not taught that Christ is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Physicality does not enter into the question of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. People seem to use this phrase because of an assumption about what constitutes reality, and they regard that to be synonymous with what is physical. That is not so. Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and there is no bread whatsoever left after the consecration. But, nowhere does the Church say it is a physical change, and rather has made it clear time and again that it is not.

18 posted on 04/22/2011 4:19:11 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Wellllllllllllll

humidity on the high desert is not easy to come by!


19 posted on 04/22/2011 4:47:52 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; Mad Dawg

Seems to me that the RCC speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issues involved.


20 posted on 04/22/2011 4:49:25 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Quix

Wow, you went for three and a half hours and this is the best you were able to do to “settle the matter”? I’m a bit disappointed. ;O)


21 posted on 04/22/2011 5:26:16 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
However, in spite of the physical properties we happen to know that it is not bread any longer because its substance has been changed. It is, in fact, the Body of Christ.

If the bread does not change, then could you explain what exactly is the "substance" that becomes the body of Christ?

22 posted on 04/22/2011 5:30:34 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I was inviting others to do so since the arguments seem like a large bolt of checked cloth....long, involved, repetitious and nearly endless. And the end looks a lot like the beginning!
That’s why I try to avoid them.


23 posted on 04/22/2011 6:05:47 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Nope.

In Alice’s rabbit hole!


24 posted on 04/22/2011 6:06:11 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

LOL.


25 posted on 04/22/2011 6:08:31 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
If the bread does not change, then could you explain what exactly is the "substance" that becomes the body of Christ?

But, the bread does change, entirely. It ceases to be bread and becomes the Body of Christ. When we speak of substance we are talking about what a thing truly is. It looks, tastes, smell, and reacts just like bread, but it isn't bread because God has made it otherwise. Should we believe that God is subject to laws of matter, or the other way around? Should we believe that only material things are real, and suggest that unless material things are involved they are not real? Does the Father have a material body? Is he not real then?

Physical properties are not more real than the underlying substance. Just because we can see them and touch them some people equate that to reality, and yet it is not so. We all die physically, and yet we do not die spiritually. Is the physical death real and the spiritual life false? No, the opposite is closer to the truth. Similarly, the substance of a thing is every bit as real as are the accidents, more so, and that is what changes in the Eucharist. There is no physical change whatsoever.

26 posted on 04/22/2011 6:30:53 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Seems to me that the RCC speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issues involved.

I don't see your point. The Church has clearly presented the doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and has never varied from it. Where is there any double-talk? People who think they know what the Church teaches like to go around using phrases like "physical presence" but they are not reflecting the teaching of the Church anymore than the KKK actually represents the doctrines of Protestant Christianity. It is merely their mistaken opinion. In the case of the Catholics who talk of physical presence they are misguided by the very human tendency to think that for something to be real it must be physical, and that if the presence is not physical then it must be less than physical. Rather, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is more than physical, it is substantial.

27 posted on 04/22/2011 6:37:34 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Quix

What say we not slam each’s other’s ecclesialb assembly, or even arguments, until after Easter?


28 posted on 04/22/2011 6:49:58 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; Mad Dawg

In deference to my Bro Mad Dawg’s request just above, . . .

I’ll defer . . .

except to say . . . I’ve not found assertions of doctrine clear, or simple . . . on the part of the RCC . . . particularly when considering the whole of the pages available on an issue.


29 posted on 04/22/2011 6:52:38 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Quix
except to say . . . I’ve not found assertions of doctrine clear, or simple . . . on the part of the RCC . . . particularly when considering the whole of the pages available on an issue.

Well, it depends on what you may have in mind as clear or simple. The doctrine of the Trinity is neither, by most objective standards, but it is consistent and free from double-talk. Additionally, I would say it is clear when considered within the framework it is presented in, and is as simple as is possible given the subject matter. The same is true of the Eucharist. The Church simply doesn't teach a physical change and the author of this article implies that such is the case. That is an error.

I think some people forget that the Church has existed for two millenia. That is a very long time. When we read Shakespeare we know he made perfect sense in his time, and yet we have to have footnotes and dictionaries to make sense of him. Was he unclear? No, but we are removed from his meaning by generations. The same is true for the Council of Trent, and we are even further from St. Thomas and others who contributed so much to the language the Church has used in understanding such mysteries. Terms like accident, substance, species, etc. are all so much gibberish to most of us, but were otherwise at the time they were used or when read by scholars. Given the difficulties inherent in reading and understanding the Nicene Creed I would say the teachings of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are actually quite reasonably clear.

30 posted on 04/22/2011 7:42:32 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

Thanks for your perspective.


31 posted on 04/22/2011 8:13:04 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

re: I sometimes wonder where conservative Catholics (such as those on FR who are so insistent that the problem does not exist outside “liberal dioceses”) go to church. The Twilight Zone, perhaps?

They go to a less radical church, it’s still liberal, but they don’t think so, because they compare it to the more radical liberals. From the view of Catholic traditon/antiquity, Catholic reality, they are both liberals. You are 100% on!


32 posted on 04/23/2011 6:54:21 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bibletruth
Hebrews 10:11 But every priest [sic] standetf daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS.

I'm pretty sure that was written in the letter to the Hebrews, and the reference was to Jewish priests offering sacrifice in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. What makes me think that? The context of the rest of the book, for one thing.

The sacrifice Christ offers through the hands of the Catholic priest is the same sacrifice he offered on Calvary. If you think Calvary didn't take away sins, you aren't a Christian in my book.

By the way, speaking of Hebrews, what do you make of this:

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle -- Hebrews 13:10 [KJV]

An altar is a table on which a sacrifice is offered, by definition. So the verse says (a) Christians do have an altar, meaning they do offer a sacrifice; and (b) they eat that sacrifice, but the Jewish priests ("they ... which serve the tabernacle") are not permitted to eat of it.

33 posted on 04/23/2011 7:05:09 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

So in other words the bread doesn’t change but it does change???? Where exactly is the evidence? Doesn’t this sound the least strange? How can you know this is true? Because someone who doesn’t know any more than you told you it to be so?

As far as physical/spiritual goes, people have reportedly seen ghosts, etc as far back as Samuel. I don’t wish to get into a discussion of this but there are dimensions that people have experienced and have been scientifically captured.

But to say the bread has changed when there is absolutely no evidence is like trying to convince an emperor that nothing is really new clothes. But there are always some that buy into that.


34 posted on 04/24/2011 4:09:20 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
So in other words the bread doesn’t change but it does change???? Where exactly is the evidence? Doesn’t this sound the least strange? How can you know this is true? Because someone who doesn’t know any more than you told you it to be so?

Are you serious? How can such cynicism even coexist with any faith at all? Christ was born to a virgin? She didn't have sex, but had a baby? And he was a man, who died, but he was God? Where exactly is the evidence? Doesn't this sound the least strange? How can you know this is true? Because someone who doesn't know any more than you told you it to be so?

But to say the bread has changed when there is absolutely no evidence is like trying to convince an emperor that nothing is really new clothes. But there are always some that buy into that.

And trying to convince someone that the dead go to heaven, or that bodies have souls, or that sins are forgiven by a man being nailed to a piece of wood are all like what exactly? I suppose there always some that buy into that too though, right?

The situation seems quite simple. You can believe only what you can touch, and see and physically prove, or you can have faith. The Holy Spirit, for instance, has no body and his action in the world is by faith. You cannot prove his existence or his activity in any way. And neither can you prove that the Eucharist is Christ. Does that then "prove" these two things to be false? Maybe, for many. But, I take a different view than you. I accept, against all the logic and physical evidence, that God created the universe from nothing because He calleth those things that are not, as those that are. Can I prove this? Nope. However, when that same God who can raise the dead by simply saying it, or can create the universe by a word, says "This is my body" I choose not to argue with him because he won't prove it with physical evidence. When He promised that the thief would that day be with Him in paradise could He prove it? Did the thief demand proof? It was the unsaved thief who demanded proof, as did those who mocked the Lord, and not the man who was promised paradise because of his faith in what was not going to be proven.

35 posted on 04/24/2011 6:26:32 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; StayoutdaBushesWay; OldNewYork; MotherRedDog; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


36 posted on 04/24/2011 6:33:01 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

Is that book still around? Is anyone still using it? I thought it had faded away.


37 posted on 04/24/2011 7:01:37 PM PDT by kalee (The offences we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson