Conversio, Discourse & Dialogue.

[Mitchell_b55]

[size=1]I recently have entered into private ecumenical dialogue with a good friend of mine on the subject of Catholicism's claim to be the "One True Church." I have explained Papal Primacy, misconceptions on the scope of infallibility, Scriptural Support, for nearly every Catholic practice. We have tried to compare beliefs and rationalize our differences, while I subtly attempt to convert her. I have argued for Scriptural Clarity and Unifying Scripture so as to notice the subtle connections between passages that taken in context can alter the meaning or interpretation of the passage. I have delved into the mysteries of early Christendom, offered to study the Didache and the Early Church Fathers. I have slowly, but surely entered into a commited conversio effort with this young woman. She is very bright and we keep each other on edge, having to carefully choose our words and presentation. She and I both have a basic knowledge of Classical Scholastic Logic, and she has a complete knowledge of Latin. However, I am resourceful and have connections. Convincing argument can stem from convincing sources and I have connections with some interesting individuals. I will however relate a recent email between the two of us, while she is in agreement with the Eucharistic Sacrafice and the other Sacraments, Penance has been a difficult topic which she takes in stride. I will say that she is the most [i]Catholic [/i] Protestant I have ever had the venture to meet, and she reminds of someone who would find interest in Taize.

The following email was obviously answering a number of questions, some of which appear off-topic. I apologize for the confusion. I hope that each shred of information will be helpful.

[b]MAIL TRANSCRIPT- Aug 7 [2 days ago] - TO: [NAME][/b]

Buon giorno, [NAME], this is my little apologetics lesson for the day.

[color="#CC0000"][b]The Sacrament of Penance.[/b][/color]

Now the Solemn Teaching and Legislation of the Church defines the Sacrament of Penance very elaborately explaining its minister, its subject, and the conditions for its valid reception. Contrition is duly explained and to any Catholic who truly has an understanding of his faith, Confession is understood in its proper context. However I will spare the details and just support its existence with a number of reliable proofs.

[b]The Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Christ.[/b]


[i]Proof from the Solemn Teaching of the Church.[/i]

The Church, in the exercise of her infallible authority, declares the institution of the Sacrament of Penance by Christ to be a doctrine given her by God Himself. [b]This proof suffices for Catholics.[/b] The other proofs are inserted for fuller instruction.

[i]Proof from Sacred Scripture.[/i]

Christ appeared to the Apostles after His resurrection, and said to them, "'Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent Me, so also I send you.' When He had said this, He breathed on them and He said to them: 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'" [ St. John xx, 22, 23] Christ thus made the Apostles judges of sinners, with power to grant or withhold absolution; and in giving them this power, He gave them the authority to prescribe all that its exercise demanded, authority, therefore, to require men to confess their sins, and to submit themselves to examina­tion as to their dispositions, their sorrow, their purpose of amendment, and their willingness to "bring forth fruit worthy of Penance." For how, in most cases, can a sin be known except through the self-accusation of the penitent? How can it be decided whether absolution is to be given or refused except after personal interview and inquiry?

The power of forgiving sin in the Sacrament of Penance was not given to the Apostles alone, but to their lawful successors as well. Observe the solemn words of Christ: "As the Father hath sent Me, so also I send you." He sent them, therefore, clothed with His own power. And to whom did He send them "To all nations, even to the consummation of the world." As long, therefore, as the world shall last, the Apostles shall be with us, exercising the power of forgiving sin through their living representatives, the bishops and priests.

[i]Proof from the Tradition of the Church.[/i]

The Church has always believed that the Sacrament of Penance was insti­tuted by Christ. This may be briefly proved as follows :­From the belief of

[color="#CC0000"][u]Eastern sectaries.[/u][/color]

All the Eastern sects have the Sacrament of Penance, which shows that at the time of their separation no one questioned its institution by Christ.

[color="#CC0000"][u]From the condemnation of heresies.[/u][/color]

In the second century the Montanists were expelled from the Church, because they con­tested her right to forgive the sins of idolatry, adultery, and murder; so too, in the third century, the Novationists, who taught that there was no pardon for a denial of the faith.

[b]Note:[/b] [NAME], Christ said [St. Matt. xii, 31] that a sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven "either in this world or the world to come," but He was referring to the obstinacy of the Pharisees who, against the dictates of their own conscience, ascribed His miracles to Satan, and closed their hearts against the grace of repentance. His emphatic words do not denote absolute impossibility but extreme difficulty, and should be compared with what He says of the rich man: "It Is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven" ... With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." [St. Matt. xix, 2-4-26.]
[color="#CC0000"]
[u]From the Fathers and early writers.[/u][/color]

[b]St. Cyprian[/b] [d. 258]: "I entreat, you, brethren, that each one should confess his own sin while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while his satisfaction and the absolution given by the priest are still pleasing to the Lord."

[b]Origen[/b] [d. 254]: "The layman who falls into sin cannot by himself wash away his fault; he must have recourse to the Levite; he needs the priest; nay, at times, he applies to one even greater than they: he needs even the pontiff's help, that he may obtain the remission of his sins."

[b]St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona[/b] [d. 390], admonishes sinners "to cease to hide their wounded conscience," and to follow the example of "the sick who do not fear the physician, though he cut and burn the secret parts of the body;" he also says: "God alone, you say, can remit sin. Quite correct. But what He does through His priest, is done by His power."

[b]St. Ambrose[/b] [d. 397]: "Sins are forgiven through the Holy Ghost. Certainly, but men lend Him their ministry, they forgive sins, not in their own name, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

[b]St. Leo the Great[/b] [d. 461] sharply condemns insistence on public confession as "opposed to Apostolic rule… since it suffices that guilt of conscience be revealed to priests alone in secret confession." And in a passage too long for quotation he fully describes all the essentials of the Sacrament as we know it. In the later centuries the evidence becomes more and more abundant.

[color="#CC0000"][u]Proof from Reason.[/u][/color]

A burthen so distasteful to human nature as sacramental confession could never have been imposed on the Church by Pope or Council without creating a vast upheaval. There would have been schisms and revolts every where, and the date of the innovation would be as well known as that of the French Revolution or of any other of the great events of secular history. But there is not a trace of anything of the kind. The absence of all protest during the centuries that elapsed from the founding of the Church to the Reformation, is a conclusive proof that the practice of Confession was always regarded as a sacred duty imposed by none other than Christ Himself.

[b]End of Apologetics Lesson. Questions, Please.[/b]

Now, since I covered that, I want to discuss a couple of other things that may interest you.

From Romano Amerio's [i]Iota Unum[/i] [Please see footnote], Historical Sketch: The Crises in the Church.

This text has been reproduced from copyright material, taken from the original Italian text by Romano Amerio, translated by Rev Fr. John P. Parsons. Copyrighted 1996 to Rev. Fr. John P. Parsons.

[b]14. The deviations of the Middle Ages.[/b]

The many grave disturbances which the Church experienced in the Middle Ages were not true crises since through them all the Church was [i]never in danger of changing its nature or dissolving itself into something else.[/i] Low moral standards among the clergy and lust for riches and power [color="#CC0000"][i]disfigure the face of the Church[/i][/color] , but do not attack its [color="#CC0000"][i]essence[/i][/color] by attempting to [i][color="#CC0000"]alter its foundations. [/color] [/i]

It is appropriate here to formulate the law of the historical conservation of the Church, a law which also constitutes her ultimate apologetic criterion. The Church is founded on the Word Incarnate, that is, on a divinely revealed truth. She is also given sufficient energies to conform her own life to that truth: it is a dogma of faith that virtue is always possible. Nonetheless, the Church is only in danger of perishing if she loses the truth, not if she fails to live up to it. The pilgrim Church is, as it were, simultaneously condemned to imperfection in her activity, and to repentance: in the modern phrase, the Church is in a contin­ual state of conversion. She is not destroyed when human weakness conflicts with her own teaching [that contradiction is inherent in the Church's pilgrim condition]; but she is destroyed when corruption reaches the level of corroding dogma, and of preaching in theory the corruptions which exist in practice.

So it was that the Church combatted the movements that disturbed her in the Middle Ages, but condemned them only when, for example, the practice of poverty became a theology of poverty which would have completely disqualified the Church from owning any earthly goods. For the same reason, the decay in clerical morals, which the eleventh century reforms so vigor­ously combatted, was not a true crisis. Nor was the conflict with the Empire, despite the fact that the Church was trying to free herself from the feudal servitude implicit in clerical marriage and in political domination over the bishops. The Catharist and Albigensian movement of the thirteenth century, and the fur­ther ramification of the Fraticelli, were not true crises either. These movements, which were begotten of huge overflows of feeling, and compounded with economic and political move­ments, were rarely translated into speculative formulae.* When they were so translated, as for example in the regressive doctrine foretelling a return to apostolic simplicity, or in the myth of the equality of all the faithful at the level of the priesthood, or in the theology of the Third Age of the Holy Spirit following on the age of the Son, which had itself followed on the age of the Father, such doctrinal deviations found the hierarchial Church ready and able to exercise its office of teaching and correcting, in which it was often helped by the temporal power which held the structure of society together. The truths of faith were contested but not corrupted, and the teaching office of the Church did not cease to function.

* This is not the case with the Catharists. [Translator's note.]


[NAME], that is the text I was searching for yesterday, concerning the state of the Church in relation to the individuals that reside in it. Remember that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and as such, will be scourged and crucified by humanity, it will be disfigured in image. Yet it does not lose its nature, its very essence, because of that disfigurement. Though while this metphor is applied to the Church literally, so too does the Church feel the physical pain that Christ felt, and is affected by the disfigurement. She is beaten and cries out to God asking: "And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." [Matthew xxvi, 42] She accepts this burthen and sweats the blood of her trials.

I just thought of a few things to add to the Sacrament of Penance apologetics, I will ammend it here. As I quoted above in St. John xx, 21 before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. In John xx, 22 the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. ii, 7 when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. In John xx, 23 Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

The text which you refer to in regards to "Confess, therefore, your sins to one another..." comes from James v, 16. Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock in his famous compilation and commentary states:

16. Confess, therefore, your sins, &c. Divers interpreters expound this sacramental confession, though, as the authors of the annotations on the Testament observe, this is not certain. The words one to another, may that it is not enough to confess to God, but that we must also confess to men, and not to every man, but to those whom God appointed, and to whom he hath given the power of remitting sins in his name. I cannot but observe that no mention at all is made, "in the visitation and communion of the sick," in the Prot. Common prayer book, of this comfortable passage out of S. James, of calling the priests of the Church, of their anointing him with oil and that his sins shall be forgiven him…etc.

The "fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much "or "the continual prayer of a just man availeth much" also supports that prayers for the dead "availeth much." If there is no purgatory where what purpose would these prayers carry. They are intercessory are they not.

εξομολογεισθε αλληλοις τα παραπτωματα και ευχεσθε υπερ αλληλων οπως ιαθητε πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη

I would also like to mention that in the Old Testament Religion, as seen somewhere in Leviticus, which I am at this moment too lazy to find, it mentions that the Jews were asked to makes Sacrifices in restitution for their sins. The size and quality of the sacrifice was decided by the priests according to the severity of the sin. Thus does it not follow that one would confess their sins to the priest who would then determine what sacrifice [or penance] would then be offered to God in the burnt offering. This is just another parallel between the covenants.

I have only a few more points to make, in regards to the one of the biggest Protestant Doctrines.

[b]SOLA SCRIPTURA or SCRITPURE ALONE[/b]

From Genesis to Apocalypse, Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura

In Matt. xxviii, 19; Mark xvi, 15 those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

In Matt. xxviii, 20 we are told to "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John xx, 30; xxi, 25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Scripture alone" theology.

In Mark xvi, 15 Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

And what about Luke i, 1-4 does Luke acknowledge that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received?

Doesn't John xx, 30; xxi, 25 say that Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures? Could it be that these have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith?

In Acts viii, 30-31; Heb. v, 12 we see through these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

In Acts xvii, 28 Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God. Beverly, that is the nameless God we discussed. In knew that he preached at the aero-something.

In 1 Cor. xi, 2 Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no [color="#CC0000"][i]inspired contents page [/i] [/color] you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth [1 Tim. iii,15]

I could offer at least ten other scriptural quotes against it, but unless you ask for them I think this sufficient to at least support that through my private interpretation I can interpret it so that it adheres to Catholic Theology. Catholics hold the Scriptures in the highest position of regard and by the way, while many people will say we are ignorant of scriptures, we are not. We can use them just as well as anyone else.

I will however play the devils advocate for the benefit of my Protestant brethren.

How about John v, 39 some non-Catholics claim this verse proves sola Scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura.

Some Protestants also use John x, 35 "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola Scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

John xx, 31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. Indeed, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

In Timothy iii, 15 does it not say "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the [color="#CC0000"][i]church [/i][/color] of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

In 2 Thessalonians ii, 15 does it not say "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the [color="#CC0000"][i]traditions [/i][/color] which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

I apologize, but this distanced me from the idea. It may help you to understand that I am not a cradle Catholic, defending a faith that has been the pillar of my youth. Until I was thirteen I had never even been to a Christian Church nor had I ever read a religious book. In 2003 I started to attend my aunts methodist Church, where I began a study of the bible, but it was obvious then, and without an prior knowledge of Catholicism, that everyone having a private interpretation that could drastically change the meaning of the Scripture lacked the unity that Christ strove for.

[IF ANYONE READ MY FIRST POST EVER THEY WILL RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING. I WAS BEING LAZY AND DIDN'T FEEL LIKE RETYPING MY RELIGIUS EXPERIENCE, WHICH I HAD ODDLY NEVER TOLD THIS PERSON, EVEN AFTER OUR MANY CONVERSATIONS.]

I fell into a period of doubt in which I studied the Oriental Philosophies that supported the intense culture of China and Japan that had flourished for centuries. I was on common ground with Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Tzu. I never embraced any religious teaching of the East, but was interested in the fundamental principles that guided them, many of which can be found in Christian Theology. From this Oriental Philosophy I gradually drifted to Islamic Theology and History, which I must admit was very advanced and successful in its own right. The visualization of desert nomads couldn't be applied to the Persian, Arab and Moorish cultures. They had highly advanced sciences, medicines, poetry and architecture. The monotheistic premise of Islam was simple and philosophically sound, but the Qur'an was too unbelievable in his assertions.

Then I slipped into the surrounding society and touched briefly the tip of the Judaism. I was fascinated by the complex system of ritual and the focus of the Talmud on cleanliness. From here I progressed into the study of the Greek Church with its absolute pacifism unlike the Augustinian Theology. The Byzantine Culture followed and then the study of Eastern Orthodoxy and finally Catholicism. My study of Catholicism stemmed from the medieval texts and my understanding was that it preserved its ancient rituals. I arrived at this point after a long haul, and it was through tedious study and devoted research. If anyone argues my point realize that I don't like being wrong and if I am in some way decieved I would by this point have realized it.

[color="#CC0000"][b]In Christi et Maria,[/b][/color]

[MY REAL NAME].

[b]END TRANSCRIPT.[/b]

I also provided her with a .doc file of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Penance, and a list of questions for Protestants.

[b]The question attachment was quite long, but included the following introduction.[/b]

[quote]When answering the following questions I recommend using Catholic, Secular, Protestant and Orthodox sources for the sake of clarity and to limit the bias of any particular source. The conclusions should amount to the same in the end. What is the old proverb? Any spoke on a wheel will lead the ant to the hub, or as St. Augustine commented “All paths lead to Rome.” [/quote]

It then contained 159 scriptural and historical questions and seven questions about anti-Catholic animus.

I then listed a number of resource links and ended with this conclusion.

[quote]Those who wish to glorify God will find time to discover His truth. That is what I ask all of those whom I distribute this to, to do. I am a convinced Roman Catholic with deep orthodox convictions, a love of Philosophy, Theology, and Sacred Scripture. If anyone has any questions I can be reached at [GO TO MY PROFILE FOR EMAIL]. I welcome friendly messages and controlled debate, I do not, however respond to rude, unwarranted denials and attacks. I ask that whether one agrees with the premises or not, one would, however, remain open-minded and realize that I have no animus against protestants and other non-Catholics. I do however fear for them. I ask for open-minded dialogue and research. To appreciate the opinion of others in such subjects is an act of discretion and reserve. Tolerance is not Acceptance, and Compassion is not Submission. God is loving, but he is also wrathful, jealous, merciful, and just. As Bishop Sheehans’ famous collection of Apologetics explains: “God is unchangeable. We speak of Him, now as wrathful, now as merciful, now as just, but the change is in us, not in Him. The force of gravity holds a statue firm on its pedestal; but, if the statue be pushed forward, the same force of gravity will shatter it to fragments. It is so with the soul. While it obeys the law of God, it is safe; if it violate it, disaster follows, not because of a change in God, but because of a change in the soul.” [/quote]

[b]I recieved the following short, concise and incomplete response.[/b]

[b]MAIL TRANSCRIPT- Aug 7 [2 days ago] - TO: [NAME][/b]

Dear [MY REAL NAME],
I agree with much of what you said about confession. [b]Confessing one's sins is indeed, something commanded in the Bible.[/b] However, Protestants usually use a different form of confession, but with the same basic principles. [b]I ask that you would not think of me as a stereotypical Protestant[/b]; I agree with much of what you say, as I have already stated.
Since we both agree that confessing one's sins is a commandment, let us discover how Catholics and Protestants differ in the way that they execute it. We are both familiar with Penance, so I shall waste no time going over that again. First of all, I am sure that Catholics and Protestants agree that the first person to whom one confesses one's sins is the person against whom they sinned. Usually, Protestant ministers encourage their congregation to team up with either one other, strong, mature Christian, or with a group of them, to discuss their weaknesses and strengths. Usually a Pastor is very open to counseling and gives his congregation counseling both from sermons and privately.
[b]I do not really see how our views conflict so much[/b], Mitch, because both views have a form of Confession. The difference in these views is deciding whether it is mandatory or not. I personally have no one I trust enough to tell my sins to [other than Christ, of course], but I would love to have that deep relationship of trust with someone.
Telling an ordained minister about one's problems is a good way to go because one will most always get a biblical answer. That is my take on Penance. I didn't spend a bunch of time on it, but perhaps we can talk in person soon.

Tua amica in Christo,
[NAME OF INDIVIDUAL]

[b]END TRANSCRIPT[/b]

I would ask that a calm and reserved debate follow. I ask all Protestants to contribute, I ask Budge to reconcile my tribute to Sola Scriptura, and I ask Catholics to defend Catholic Doctrine.
Reading the above response I feel confident that if I can instill an understanding and acceptance of Church Authority this individual would have little difficulty accepting Catholic Confession.

[color="#CC0000"][b]Arrivederci, [/b] [/color]

Petrus Scholasticus, the Student of Peter.[/size]

[color="#000099"][size=1][b]IOTA UNUM FOOTNOTE:[/b] While Iota Unum is hailed by many ultratraditionalists, I find the erudite arguments very well formed and with historical, theological, and philosophical basis. I have found that this book is objective in its content, shows a intelligent, yet, humble opinion, who offers insight into an obvious problem. I do not agree with Romano Amerio in all cases, and not necessarily in his conclusion, but I feel that it is a must read for any Catholic who wishes to understand the crisis in the Church, which is not so strangely placed in history.[/size][/color]

Edited August 9, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[dairygirl4u2c]

If you want to convince him of Papal authority, I would recommend Cardinal John Henry Newman. He cleverly noted that the progress of papal authority being exerted would grow, like an acorn tree. Think about if you had Peter's power and passed it on, in reality. You're not going to start out a fully developed organization as exists now. With this mindset, show him Victor and the Easter controvery, Stephen Firmilian and the baptism controversy, the quotes from ECFs prior to constantine, and of course post 300s as the statements become stronger. If your friend is skeptical enough, he will finally notice that the early church's references to papal authority are ambiguous, and whether the tree as Newman put it grew legitimately into the elaborate Divine organization now or through human hands grew into an elaborate manmade organization is hard to determine. he will begin looking for contradictions in the CC, to which is a long journey which I myself am on. (particularly "no salvation outside the CC" contradiction or not) Eventually he may either find the arguments "converging and convincing" as Newman put it, or he will become a scholar of sorts in attempts to find contradictions etc.

Edited August 10, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[jswranch]

Great effort. Also, remember to be a great friend.

For papal authority, [url="http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-CA151.html?L+scstore+vrlz0161ff8daa8d+1160607289"][u]I recommend Tim Staples' "The Shocking Truth About The Pope And The Bible[/u]." [/url]


(your font was too small)