Author Topic: How have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Church, if you're Catholic?  (Read 1360 times)

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3661
  • Thanked: 1308 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering

Quote
The powers/ gates  of Hell "prevailing" indicates not that the gates and powers of the Church cannot be breached but that the Church will eventually overwhelm and totally defeat evil when the Church actively engages in the war against principalities and powers.  Everyone seems to treat the phrase as if it says, "The Gates of the Church will always prevail against the powers of Hell." Or even a more silly rendition of the images of "gates" from Hell pro-actively attacking the Church. 

The Church must always exist, and because the Pope is the final authority in the Catholic Church in all matters of discipline, morality, and dogma, with immediate jurisdiction everywhere, and the ability to proclaim infallible doctrines, the Roman Church can never, ever fall from standing, because if it falls, the Catholic Church would fall from standing.

What do you mean "from standing?" 

Quote
Unfortunately, it seems to me it has happened.

What "it" are you referring to?  Can you name a single dogma or truth of the faith, the universal Church is required to renounce or a new policy binding the faithful that is heresy? 

Quote
You aren't actually disputing the facts I bring up, you are trying to change the epistemological certainty of the Catholic Church in a doctrine absolutely foreign to what Rome has spoken - with the case being closed.

I'm not trying to change anything.  I'm clarifying what indefectibility of the Church means and not an exaggerated caricature based on Neo-Ultramontanism. 

Quote
Quote
No Pope has bound the Universal Church to embrace a heresy or deny a part of the Deposit of Faith.  What Popes believe and teach in off the hand or even written comments are simply their opinions and policies, they don't alter the teaching of the Church.  Francis may say what he wants about the death penalty, but he's wrong.  Until he tries to formally bind the Church to his error he is simply wrong.  After that, he is either never going to do it, or automatically lose the office if he tries to.  More likely he will never declare it.  Changing wording in a catechism doesn't qualify as a binding statement of magisterial force.  It's simply putting an erroneous statement into a Catechism. 

Are not canonizations binding?

The canonization is a name on a piece of paper.  How does that bind me?  How am I "bound" in faith by a name on a list or the choice of musical pieces in a particular liturgy? 

Quote
If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?

It depends on what you mean by "rejecting" are you claiming that the name of the saint must be expunged?  By what authority?  If you are skeptical of the soul of the named being in Heaven, why would you speak of some kind of judgment for which you have no power to exclaim? 

To know a soul is damned requires the same new revelation that would be required to know with certainty a soul is in Heaven. 

Quote
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself.


So what? A future Pope can withdraw it due to scandal if you like.  Cults of many declared saints have withered over time. 

Quote
And the Catechism is Rome's official teaching, and it's what's to believed everywhere by everyone, and it is officially a document of the Magisterium. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to do so. It's binding.

We are not bound to subjective, non-magisterially backed commentaries in Catechisms.  That's absurd on its face.  We are not bound to every statement in a papal bull or encyclical or conciliar document, just the doctrinal aspect. 

No Catechism is infallible and we're not bound to every Catechisms assertions nor formulations. 


Quote
Canonizations are simply honorifics based on human knowledge, prudence and decisions.  They are not part of the Deposit of Faith.  They are not apostolic and papal canonizations are not exercises in infallibility.

Quote
"To the honour of the holy and undivided Trinity,
for the exaltation of the Catholic faith
and the increase of the Christian life,
by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Ourselves,
after mature deliberation
and frequent prayer for the Divine assistance,
with the advice of Our venerable brethren,
We decree and define .... to be a saint,
and We place (his or her) name in the catalogue of Saints,
decreeing that in the universal Church
(he or she) is to be venerated among the Saints with pious devotion.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Also, Pope Benedict said that they are, as did almost every 19th century Catholic theologian.



First, 19th century theologians were vastly invested in the ideas of Neo-Ultramontanism and they were sorely disappointed by the decrees of Vatican I.  Consequently, they virtually ignored Vatican I and proceeded to "extend" the definition of infallibility illicitly in their manuals. 

Second, I don't know which Pope Benedict you are referring to.  If it's Pope Benedict XIV, he did not claim they were infallible.  He proceeded to state that people who definitively declared that the Church had erred in "this or that" canonization was if not a heretic (since he couldn't actually determine it in a general statement since He didn't know. )  He simply stated that the person was insolent. 

Third, the language of a canonization is not sufficient to change its nature.  Revelation is required to know how a soul has fared when in front of the Judgement seat of God.  For a Pope to infallibly canonize he would be adding new, specific information to the Deposit of Faith that is post-Apostolic.  The Church dogmatically teaches that public revelation closed with the death of St. John the Apostle. 


 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3661
  • Thanked: 1308 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
This brings us back to the question - when does the gates of hell prevail against the Church? The past few posts have been attempts to circumvent the question rather than answer it.


The gates of Hell don't prevail against the Church when the Church engages in her full apostolic mission.  If there is no resistance to them the gates of Hell stand. 
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
Quote
What do you mean "from standing?" 

I'm quoting Saint Gregory the Great's language.

The Church teaching the Truth. If the Church embraces one explicit falsehood and teaches it, the Church no longer teaches the Truth in it's entirety and instead teaches falsehood in it's entirety.

Quote
Unfortunately, it seems to me it has happened.

Quote
What "it" are you referring to?  Can you name a single dogma or truth of the faith, the universal Church is required to renounce or a new policy binding the faithful that is heresy? 

Intercommunion with Lutherans...intercommunion with Orthodox...the change to the Death Penalty...communion while in a state of adultery..."extraordinary Eucharistic ministers"...

Quote
You aren't actually disputing the facts I bring up, you are trying to change the epistemological certainty of the Catholic Church in a doctrine absolutely foreign to what Rome has spoken - with the case being closed.

Quote
I'm not trying to change anything.  I'm clarifying what indefectibility of the Church means and not an exaggerated caricature based on Neo-Ultramontanism. 

Fair enough, but for me, based on the debates I've had, it sometimes can be hard from defining a caricature from reality.

Still, thanks for clarifying, it means a lot.

Quote
If I were a Priest of a Church and I rejected a Saint who was canonized, could I not be excommunicated?
Quote
It depends on what you mean by "rejecting" are you claiming that the name of the saint must be expunged?  By what authority?  If you are skeptical of the soul of the named being in Heaven, why would you speak of some kind of judgment for which you have no power to exclaim? 

To know a soul is damned requires the same new revelation that would be required to know with certainty a soul is in Heaven. 

Well, a couple of things.

1. A revelation should not be against the authority of the Church, which you argued on the thread "A Theory about the Crisis in the Church..."

2. If Saint Cyril had the authority to rebuke Nestorius while he was still alive, St. Leo the Great and those at Chalcedon had the authority to rebuke Eutyches and Nestorius, if the Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council had the authority to curse the dead Pope Honorius, if Saint Paul had the authority to not only rebuke Saint Peter himself, but several Church communities that delved into Judaization, Paganism, Adultery, and Schism, etc., but we are not allowed to rebuke the actions of those who did horrible things, one has to ask the question why for 1960 years the Church was able to curse people and now it's a sin to do so.

Quote
Every Church venerates Pope Paul VI, whether you like it or not, by the authority of the Pope himself.

Quote
So what?

How is it that the Church cursed Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Tertullian, Origen, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, but Pope Paul VI, who was the Pope, arguably did things just as bad if not worse, is a Saint? Why did the Church curse these other people in the first place - and that's not to mention the burning at the stake of several heretics and sinners, like Bruno?

Quote
And the Catechism is Rome's official teaching, and it's what's to believed everywhere by everyone, and it is officially a document of the Magisterium. If it wasn't, he wouldn't have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to do so. It's binding.

Quote
We are not bound to subjective, non-magisterially backed commentaries in Catechisms.  That's absurd on its face.  We are not bound to every statement in a papal bull or encyclical or conciliar document, just the doctrinal aspect. 

No Catechism is infallible and we're not bound to every Catechisms assertions nor formulations. 

Can you provide evidence that the Catechism published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith isn't magisterial?


Quote
First, 19th century theologians were vastly invested in the ideas of Neo-Ultramontanism and they were sorely disappointed by the decrees of Vatican I.  Consequently, they virtually ignored Vatican I and proceeded to "extend" the definition of infallibility illicitly in their manuals. 

Second, I don't know which Pope Benedict you are referring to.  If it's Pope Benedict XIV, he did not claim they were infallible.  He proceeded to state that people who definitively declared that the Church had erred in "this or that" canonization was if not a heretic (since he couldn't actually determine it in a general statement since He didn't know. )  He simply stated that the person was insolent. 

Third, the language of a canonization is not sufficient to change its nature.  Revelation is required to know how a soul has fared when in front of the Judgement seat of God.  For a Pope to infallibly canonize he would be adding new, specific information to the Deposit of Faith that is post-Apostolic.  The Church dogmatically teaches that public revelation closed with the death of St. John the Apostle.


Pope Benedict XVI, I have to find the encyclical where he says it.

But interesting argument; still, it's problematic to me at least doctrinally that the Church has canonized someone whose life is contradictory to the Saints of the past 1960 years, especially to the likes of Pope Pius X (who literally has the opposite life to Pope Paul VI), and even Saint Benedict, who destroyed a sanctuary to Apollo and created an oratory to Saint John the Apostle (who clearly didn't respect different religions in peace and love, like his holiness commanded us to do).
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 12:09:55 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
bump
 

Offline Davis Blank - EG

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 424 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Quote
Because Jesus's promise would mean nothing, and I would therefore be able to be a Protestant or a Mormon or a Gnostic or a member of the Heaven's Gate Cult and still be in good standing, because they all claim to be the pure, unfiltered Truth of what Jesus spoke.

Jesus' promise about the gates of hell was not to anyone whom claimed to tell the truth, it was to Peter and the Church Jesus founded on him.  Only the Catholic, and to a good degree Orthodox, have any reasonable claim to be that Church.

Jesus' litmus test happened on Easter Sunday.  He passed.  The test, for us, is to determine which Church is His Church.  That is a matter of history and Scripture.  Again, only Catholics / Orthodox have any good claim to this.
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8036
  • Thanked: 5304 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.
Lent: Only on Sundays.

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.

You know very well I've explained the whole cliche "Divorce" and "Contraception" argument on other threads in the past, with how Rome has been inconsistent pre-schism and post-schism on Divorce (your argument being "well, this invisible standard which Rome holds to today is really in line with Truth, and the past was erroneous", even though you won't take that same standard and apply it to Rome today), and how Contraception is only allowed via Economia (in my opinion, erroneously) but still viewed as morally unacceptable, unlike the "use NFP to stop kids from pestering your life" approach which Rome has endorsed, even though NFP has the same intent and means as artificial contraception - to prevent sex from having a procreative purpose and allow it for pure pleasure alone.


Needless to say that in Orthodoxy, each Apostolic Bishop holding the full Truth possesses the entire Church, and if 99% of the Bishops fell into heresy, that one Bishop would be the Catholic Church (as Saint Athanasius says).

Rome's epistemological foundation is not every single bishop, but one Superbishop (hence infallibility).


So it isn't based on emotion, but rather logic.

I'm not gonna address the divorce contraception "ha, gotcha" argument nymore on this thread, because all it will do is you putting fingers in your ears and ignore the original topic which I posted.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 07:38:03 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
Also, if the "Orthodox problem" you refer to is the Moscow Constantinople schism ("Ugh, thank God we have a Pope, we don't have canonically irregular problems"), you don't know Christian history at all.

During the time of Saint John Chrysostom, there were two Patriarchs of Antioch, with one not in communion with Rome. Saint John Chrysostom spent most of his life not in communion with Rome under Patriarch Meletius (not Patriarch Paulinus, who was Rome's guy), said Patriarch not only do all the Antiochians in communion with Rome trace their line to, but Patriarch Meletius presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Council.

During the time of Council of Ephesus - the Third Ecumenical Council - the Antiochians and Alexandrians excommunicated each other, with both being in communion with Rome, until Alexandria was favored over Antioch.

During the Photian schism, Constantinople and Rome broke with each other, but Rome was in communion and Constantinople was in communion with all the other Eastern Patriarchs.


And that's not to mention all the other canonical issues Rome today faces. Most people would classify the SSPX as "canonically irregular." Even Catholic Answers has said that Catholics may attend Mass there. Okay, even though it's debatable whether the SSPX is schismatic or not, what about the SSJK? They are in schism with the Ukrainian Catholics, but they are in communion with the SSPX. Are the SSJK schismatic? What about the SSPV, who were in communion with the SSPX but are now in schism with the SSPX?

Even though they are canonically okay, it's worth mentioning there are 3 Patriarchs of Antioch in Rome's Communion (the Syriac, the Melkites, and the Maronites, who all claim to be the true successor to the Ancient Antiochian Church of the New Testament).

Say what you will, but regardless if you go to a Constantinople Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church, you will have better confidence of receiving an orthodox Christian priest or bishop compared to a typical Novus Ordo Catholic priest or bishop. The whole schism is geopolitics, not doctrine.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 07:49:26 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline Davis Blank - EG

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 424 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
This puts the laity primarily in charge of determining the truth from falsehood.  Catholicism does not completely abrogate the need to put your thinking cap on, but the onus is primarily on the institution of the Church.

God is the truth.  Some will think, if I find the truth, that is where God is.  Others will think if I find where God is, there is the truth.  Which way did Jesus set up for us?  I believe He founded a Church, and by being within that Church, I can find the truth.  I believe you are following the former path.

I do not believe the human mind can dot every i and cross every t of the truth.  Some examples of things we cannot honestly make sense of: the Trinity, Jesus as eternal yet begotten, Jesus incarnating.  Some people accept these truths that the Church teaches (which our minds cannot make sense of) and then get lost in the weeds trying (in vain) to make perfect sense out of other teachings of the Church.
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8036
  • Thanked: 5304 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.

You know very well I've explained the whole cliche "Divorce" and "Contraception" argument on other threads in the past, with how Rome has been inconsistent pre-schism and post-schism on Divorce (your argument being "well, this invisible standard which Rome holds to today is really in line with Truth, and the past was erroneous", even though you won't take that same standard and apply it to Rome today), and how Contraception is only allowed via Economia (in my opinion, erroneously) but still viewed as morally unacceptable, unlike the "use NFP to stop kids from pestering your life" approach which Rome has endorsed, even though NFP has the same intent and means as artificial contraception - to prevent sex from having a procreative purpose and allow it for pure pleasure alone.


Needless to say that in Orthodoxy, each Apostolic Bishop holding the full Truth possesses the entire Church, and if 99% of the Bishops fell into heresy, that one Bishop would be the Catholic Church (as Saint Athanasius says).

Rome's epistemological foundation is not every single bishop, but one Superbishop (hence infallibility).


So it isn't based on emotion, but rather logic.

I'm not gonna address the divorce contraception "ha, gotcha" argument nymore on this thread, because all it will do is you putting fingers in your ears and ignore the original topic which I posted.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread.

I don't know what so unclear about:

Seems to me this is just another manifestation of your admitted issue of perfectionism, dude.

Is the Church not perfect in dogma and moral teaching?

Such a standard must be defined, understood, and accepted by all parties before any subsequent discussion can be had. Since you don't want to have that discussion, and moreover in light of the Orthodox and their own problems, I don't believe you actually want the answer and this quest is just another manifestation of a problem you admit to have. That you aren't willing to apply said standard to your chosen sect is, I believe, indicative of an emotional, rather than theological, quest.
Lent: Only on Sundays.

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
Okay, fine. This whole thread is not a search of emotion, but rather theology.

So, as you've stated, can you define and explain a standard which is acceptable to all parties, such that it can be accepted by all parties, that is consistent with the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church?


Your primary criticism in which you assume my intentions is that I didn't apply the same standard to Orthodoxy. What problems does Orthodoxy have today, where I'm prejudiced in my application of standards, compared to Catholicism? And why is it relevant to the discussion?

If it's divorce and contraception, I've given a succinct answer here to address your concerns, and I'm hesitant (hence why I refused) to discuss it in grandiose detail because I believe that it will steer away the discussion. But if you want to discuss it in grandiose detail, as you believe that the validity of your point of view depends on it, go ahead.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 08:59:28 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
I refused also because I don't see how the standing of the Orthodox Church ought to affect the standing of the Catholic Church, unless you believe that somehow the Orthodox Church's standing depends on the Catholic Church or vice-versa (as if there was some invisible Church out there).

Orthodoxy can be a big pile of crap (which it very well may be), but that doesn't matter in the question of if the Catholic Church has fallen from standing.

It doesn't actually answer the question of how the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome, if they have, or if they have not. Orthodoxy can teach abortion, homosexuality, and Satanism is acceptable, but that would not change the answer to the question if the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
I also don't see how you've ignored my post about me doubting Orthodoxy because of the history of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church and Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage.
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8036
  • Thanked: 5304 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Okay, fine. This whole thread is not a search of emotion, but rather theology.

So, as you've stated, can you define and explain a standard which is acceptable to all parties, such that it can be accepted by all parties, that is consistent with the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church?


Your primary criticism in which you assume my intentions is that I didn't apply the same standard to Orthodoxy. What problems does Orthodoxy have today, where I'm prejudiced in my application of standards, compared to Catholicism? And why is it relevant to the discussion?

If it's divorce and contraception, I've given a succinct answer here to address your concerns, and I'm hesitant (hence why I refused) to discuss it in grandiose detail because I believe that it will steer away the discussion. But if you want to discuss it in grandiose detail, as you believe that the validity of your point of view depends on it, go ahead.

No, YOU need to define it since you are asking the question. Only from there can it be possible for a rapid honing in on where your understanding is incorrect and a correction be made. And only then can we determine if you agree or not before any further discussion can take place.
Lent: Only on Sundays.

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 88 times
  • Saint John Chrysostom, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox inquirer
p. According to Christ's promise, the Gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church.
p. This means that the Roman Catholic Church, built on Peter, is indefectible.
p. The Roman Church being indefectible means that I can go to Rome for teachings as defined by the Pope and at least the level of the Ordinary Magisterium, as well as the policy / administration of the Roman Church, as well as look to their guidance for whom I should emulate as a role model in terms of whom is canonized as a Saint, with no mistakes that can be dangerous to my salvation.
p. The Roman Church cannot teach things differently in terms of morality and dogma than what it did in the past to such a degree that it flat out contradicts what it taught in the past, as this is dangerous to my salvation.
p. If it teaches things which are dangerous to my salvation, the Church defects.
p. The Roman Church today teaches defined things by the Pope and at least the level of Ordinary Magisterium, as well as the policy / administration of the Roman Church, which are different than the past to such a degree that it flat out contradicts the past, and has canonized people who are not moral role models to the Saints in the past.
p. The Roman Catholic Church teaches things which are dangerous to my salvation.
p. The Roman Catholic Church, built on Peter, therefore is not indefectible (it is defectible)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]

c. Ergo, Christ is a liar, as the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 09:42:54 PM by TheReturnofLive »