Would that be like the Catholic FReepers who are claiming that she's wrong without offering any proof?
What the lead article says about the Roman church and forged documents and Papal Power is spot on. I have taken notice how everyone of the FR Catholics have responded.
Now, I know what I am going to say here is not true of all Catholics, the ones I’ve known personally, but the ones who post on the RF, not so, they appear a very dishonest lot. Which is why nothing meaningful ever comes out of any discussion with them.
Generally speaking, I don’t find this among Protestants (using the term to mean non-Catholic Christians), but then they don’t have primacy claims over the whole of Christianity to defend.
I guess, when you think about it, we shouldn’t be shocked at the dishonesty, my goodness, everything hangs on the Roman church’s claim that the Popes reign over Christianity is historically valid (the rest of Christianity - yea, the entire world - must be in subservience to the Pope). As the lead article brings out, they have used dishonest means to establish the primacy.
The institution of the Papacy is simply a lie, the fact that they use lying forged documents to establish it, proves it. And the lying tradition continues on.
This offcourse is old news. She just happen to put a short readable article on it. That’s all.
Why not let her prove she exists with some sort of document before she talks about other supposed phony documents. Why should what she writes be taken seriously when her very existence is shadowy and dubious? This is a joke that writes itself.