Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences (Read 58662 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #90 on:** December 18, 2025, 04:57:10 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on December 18, 2025, 04:43:14 PM

The unbaptized baby's SOUL will go to the limbo of the Children. They are not "saved," meaning they do not immediately enter the beatific vision as disembodied souls.

So let's say a baby dies shortly after Baptism. Does that baby go to the beatific vision as a disembodied soul?

Freind · « **Reply #91 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 18, 2025, 03:44:27 PM

False. At the very most, one might interpret it as the Church remains open on the matter, i.e. has not definitively condemned BoD. Prior discipline had the Church refusing Christian burial. Mass is that of Christian Burial, not just to get them to Heaven, and throughout the history of the Church catechumens were in this gray area, where they were permitted to be called Christian (thus Christian burial), but were not admitted to the Sacraments or to Mass.

No, the divine Church, by putting that in law, CANNOT be accused of calling into doubt a previously defined solemn dogma.

This law is necessarily conveying that a person who is not baptized with water CAN go to heaven.

Angelus · « **Reply #92 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:14:12 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 18, 2025, 04:50:16 PM

C'mon, man. If you want to define "saved" or "salvation" in a way that has never been meant by the Church to get out of what is being taught...well, you can't do that, but ok

But I would like to see your explanation of Paul III's "eternal life"

He teaches that the infants need to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth [Sacrament of Baptism] to obtain "eternal life"

Paul III said those who "incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life."

I did NOT say that unbaptized babies "incur no trace of the original sin." They certainly do incur Original Sin as the Church teaches. My position is that those unbaptized souls will eventually be let out of limbo and will have eternal life after the GJ. Just like the OT Fathers were released from the Limbo of the Father and entered the beatific vision at the Ascension.

The "eternal life" reference is just a restatement of the heretics who were claiming that the babies did not incur original sin and therefore would go directly into eternal life. That is not what I am saying. I say that go to Limbo until after the Second Coming when they will be re-united to their bodies.

Freind · « **Reply #93 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:15:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 18, 2025, 03:58:17 PM

See, this comment here exposes the malicious liar ... as consistent with his pattern on other issues.

. . . .

So your OP is refuted thoroughly again, but you're a dishonest liar and will just claim it hadn't been and simply reiterate your lie.

No, take a look at my title, which is a prime theme. That is not something you addressed, so you certainly have not been thorough.

Freind · « **Reply #94 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:18:07 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 18, 2025, 04:21:32 AM

You are wrong because yes I do, but obviously you do not accept what St. Alphonsus taught.

Tell me what St. Alphonsus taught (with a quote) that I do not accept.

Angelus · « **Reply #95 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:19:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 18, 2025, 04:57:10 PM

So let's say a baby dies shortly after Baptism. Does that baby go to the beatific vision as a disembodied soul?

Yes, the baptized baby enters the beatific vision as a disembodied soul. Their bodies are given back to them at the resurrection of the body after the Second Coming.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #96 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:35:28 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on December 18, 2025, 05:14:12 PM

Paul III said those who "incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life."

I did NOT say that unbaptized babies "incur no trace of the original sin." They certainly do incur Original Sin as the Church teaches. My position is that those unbaptized souls will eventually be let out of limbo and will have eternal life after the GJ. Just like the OT Fathers were released from the Limbo of the Father and entered the beatific vision at the Ascension.

The "eternal life" reference is just a restatement of the heretics who were claiming that the babies did not incur original sin and therefore would go directly into eternal life. That is not what I am saying. I say that go to Limbo until after the Second Coming when they will be re-united to their bodies.

Entire paragraph, again:

Quote

If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema

Do you deny that infants incur Original Sin? No, you profess that they do.

What you are denying is that Original Sin, which infants incur, needs to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life. That is part of what is being condemned here

You're just modifying the heresy by postponing the "eternal life" of unbaptized infants into the future, and not immediately.

Angelus · « **Reply #97 on:** December 18, 2025, 05:53:39 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 18, 2025, 05:35:28 PM

Entire paragraph, again:

Do you deny that infants incur Original Sin? No, you profess that they do.

What you are denying is that Original Sin, which infants incur, needs to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life. That is part of what is being condemned here

You're just modifying the heresy by postponing the "eternal life" of unbaptized infants into the future, and not immediately.

Again, no I am not denying that Original Sin "needs to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life."

I am saying that the Rebirth that cleanses those infants is the rebirth that occurs at the resurrection of the Body.

Apocalypse 21:5

"And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true."

The things made new will include souls stained with Original Sin, which came not from any kind of deliberate fault of the infant, but was simply a constitutive feature of the prior epoch (saeculum), the Age after the Fall of Man.

After the Second Coming, there will be a new Epoch and a new world, called the NHNE.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #98 on:** December 18, 2025, 06:06:18 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on December 18, 2025, 05:53:39 PM

Again, no I am not denying that Original Sin "needs to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life."

I am saying that the Rebirth that cleanses those infants is the rebirth that occurs at the resurrection of the Body.

Apocalypse 21:5

"And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true."

The things made new will include souls stained with Original Sin, which came not from any kind of deliberate fault of the infant, but was simply a constitutive feature of the prior epoch (saeculum), the Age after the Fall of Man.

After the Second Coming, there will be a new Epoch and a new world, called the NHNE.

It's not just "rebirth"

Trent Sess. 5 Ch. 4 (quoted above): "regenerationis lavacro"

Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 (description of the justification of the impious): "lavacro regenerationis"

The "laver of rebirth/regeneration" is the Sacrament of Baptism.

You are denying that the Original Sin which infants incur needs to be cleansed by the Sacrament of Baptism in order for them to attain eternal life

Angelus · « **Reply #99 on:** December 18, 2025, 06:32:17 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 18, 2025, 06:06:18 PM

It's not just "rebirth"

Trent Sess. 5 Ch. 4 (quoted above): "regenerationis lavacro"

Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 (description of the justification of the impious): "lavacro regenerationis"

The "laver of rebirth/regeneration" is the Sacrament of Baptism.

You are denying that the Original Sin which infants incur needs to be cleansed by the Sacrament of Baptism in order for them to attain eternal life

You are conflating the necessity of the means with the necessity of the grace.

If we acknowledge that regeneration can occur via the votum (desire) for the sacrament—as established by the Council of Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4—then it is dogmatically certain that the physical Sacrament is not the exclusive instrument of cleansing in every possible circuмstance. If the votum suffices for the adult, we are discussing the power of God to apply the grace of the 'laver' outside the visible rite.

Regarding the "laver of regeneration" (lavacro regenerationis), you are interpreting this as strictly bound to water in time, whereas I am pointing to the Regeneration promised at the Resurrection. If these infants are to be united to a glorified body, that body and soul must be cleansed.

Furthermore, we have the historical precedent of the Old Testament Fathers. They certainly incurred Original Sin and remained in the Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers). They were not cleansed by the Sacrament of Baptism, which did not yet exist, yet they were truly regenerated and admitted to the Beatific Vision by Christ. This proves that God can, and has, applied the merits of the Passion to cleanse Original Sin through a 'rebirth' that is not the sacramental rite of water.

If God did this for the Fathers, it is not a "heresy" to suggest He can apply that same cleansing to infants at the "making of all things new" (Apocalypse 21:5).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #100 on:** December 18, 2025, 06:41:41 PM »

Perhaps the only thing one might claim that isn't heretical, though you might be skating on thin ice ... is that after these infants are raised from the dead, they will be baptized right before the consummation of the world, similar to what many Church Fathers believe happened to the just in Limbo. Certainly not revealed .. but then Limbo Infantium isn't revealed either, and I can't think of any doctrine / dogma it would violate to speculate along those lines. If someone has a counter-point, I'm all ears, but I can't think of anything. And one needn't redefine words like Salvation and Hell.

You could speculate that for those who are dying, God could bilocate some Catholic to baptize an individual, or send an angel to baptize, where just a tiny drop of water would suffice. St. Cyprian said of his theory regarding the Baptism of Blood, that the martyrs were washed in their blood while angels pronounced the words. God can pause time, provide an interior illumination of faith, bilocate some to the side of a dying person to baptize etc. etc.

There are a thousand ways you could speculate ... but WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY ARE LITERALLY HELL-BENT ON DENYING THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION.

We're taught about the Sacraments that they are necessary, by God's will, because we are both body and soul. We're taught that we receive the character of Christ in our souls nad the DNA to become members of Christ's Body, and therefore to be saved. This character or seal is not just a badge of honor or some non-repeatabiliity marker that some people in Heaven have and others do not. It has some ontological importance, and that importance is that it actually gives the human soul the supernatural faculty that it lacks by nature, i.e. to see God as He is, supernaturally.

To what extent God works in an ordinary manner, to what he works in an extraordinary manner, we do not know ... but there's absolutely no reason to somehow claim that God is restricted by impossibilty. He orchestrates in the most amazing and wonderful manner, by His Providence, who gets born where, to which parents, at what time and place, etc. ... so that if there's a reason that somoene was born among animists, this was not happenstance that God somehow must make exceptions for. This is what St. Augustine, in rejecting BoD, complained about, where people gave all this power to accident and chance and happenstance ... almost as if they barely believed in God.

That's to say nothing of the fact that belief in BoD has saved absolutely no one. As Father Feeney famously put it ... if anything it weakens any desire someone might have to be Baptized. Just think about it. If you believe firmly and without exception that you need the Sacrament in water to be saved ... how ardently you'd burn for it, and beg for it, every moment of every day, until you received it. But if you have the attitude of "meh, BoD will save me." Are you really even desiring Baptism anymore, or just the desire of Baptism. There's no Baptism of the Desire of the Desire of Baptism.

It's just so idiotic, so faithless, where people who think thish way ... I have to wonder if they even believe in God, and His Providence.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #101 on:** December 18, 2025, 07:04:35 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on December 18, 2025, 06:32:17 PM

You are conflating the necessity of the means with the necessity of the grace.

If we acknowledge that regeneration can occur via the votum (desire) for the sacrament—as established by the Council of Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4—then it is dogmatically certain that the physical Sacrament is not the exclusive instrument of cleansing in every possible circuмstance. If the votum suffices for the adult, we are discussing the power of God to apply the grace of the 'laver' outside the visible rite.

Regarding the "laver of regeneration" (lavacro regenerationis), you are interpreting this as strictly bound to water in time, whereas I am pointing to the Regeneration promised at the Resurrection. If these infants are to be united to a glorified body, that body and soul must be cleansed.

Furthermore, we have the historical precedent of the Old Testament Fathers. They certainly incurred Original Sin and remained in the Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers). They were not cleansed by the Sacrament of Baptism, which did not yet exist, yet they were truly regenerated and admitted to the Beatific Vision by Christ. This proves that God can, and has, applied the merits of the Passion to cleanse Original Sin through a 'rebirth' that is not the sacramental rite of water.

If God did this for the Fathers, it is not a "heresy" to suggest He can apply that same cleansing to infants at the "making of all things new" (Apocalypse 21:5).

No, it's heresy because the Church has ruled out the possibility of infants attaining eternal life without the "laver of regeneration" (baptism). An infant cannot "desire" anything.

You cannot equate it with the OT Just because the Church has never declared how they were remitted of Original Sin. It could have very well been that they were baptised after Our Lord's resurrection when the "bodies of the saints arose" and "came into the holy city and appeared to many" [Matthew 27:52-53]. We know how infants are remitted of Original Sin. The Church teaches us the only way how, the "laver of regeneration"

Like Lad said, you might be able to posit that they can receive the "laver of regeneration" (The Sacrament of Baptism) when they are united with their bodies before the end of this world. That is the only possibility you can entertain without denying what the Church has taught us to believe

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #102 on:** December 18, 2025, 07:37:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 18, 2025, 04:50:22 PM

We don't know ... as it's pure speculation.

Agreed and my posts are clearly just that. I'd hoped to generate some interesting discussion about what people actually think above and beyond what little we know. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #103 on:** December 18, 2025, 07:49:27 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 18, 2025, 07:04:35 PM

Like Lad said, you might be able to posit that they can receive the "laver of regeneration" (The Sacrament of Baptism) when they are united with their bodies before the end of this world. That is the only possibility you can entertain without denying what the Church has taught us to believe

Angelus, this is also possibly what you can apply to the "invincibly ignorant" in your NHNE hypothesis who fit Pius IX's terms (supposing that anyone at all who fits his description dies "invincibly ignorant")

I think, in theory, it does preserve EENS if you were to say that after their souls and bodies unite they receive Baptism before the end of this world

There are stories of Saints who actually raised the dead to life precisely so that they could be baptized..so there might be some precedent there

Angelus · « **Reply #104 on:** December 18, 2025, 10:35:58 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 18, 2025, 07:49:27 PM

Angelus, this is also possibly what you can apply to the "invincibly ignorant" in your NHNE hypothesis who fit Pius IX's terms (supposing that anyone at all who fits his description dies "invincibly ignorant")

I think, in theory, it does preserve EENS if you were to say that after their souls and bodies unite they receive Baptism before the end of this world

There are stories of Saints who actually raised the dead to life precisely so that they could be baptized..so there might be some precedent there

Please take a look a the revised Monograph. I think it might clarify some things.

Zoe, Soteria, and the Inviolable Necessity of the Church
A Re-examination of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in Light of the Magisterium of Pius IX

I. Formal Abstract
Scope: Speculative Dogmatic Theology / Ecclesiology

This monograph provides a rigorous scholastic reconciliation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with the Magisterium of Pope Pius IX regarding the Invincibly Ignorant. By recovering the linguistic and metaphysical distinction between Zoe (the internal state of justification/life) and Soteria (the juridical rescue and immediate entry into the Beatific Vision), the thesis identifies the Baptismal Character as the objective "Key" to the Light of Glory.

The work rejects the "Miracle Fallacy"—the necessity of a private revelation at death—proposing instead that the Invincibly Ignorant attain Zoe through an act of perfect charity fueled by "Divine Light," which includes an implicit votum (desire) for the Sacraments. However, lacking the objective Character, these souls incur a "Debt of Nature" and enter a New Covenant Limbo of the Just upon death, analogous to the Limbus Patrum. The final resolution is found eschatologically: at the General Resurrection, Christ the High Priest applies the "Laver of Regeneration" to all possessing Zoe, satisfying the debt and granting Soteria.

II. Introduction: The Standard of the "Upright Life"

According to the Magisterium of Pope Pius IX (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore), the Invincibly Ignorant may attain Eternal Life (Zoe) by "observing the precepts of the Natural Law" and living an "upright life." This thesis posits that this "upright life" is not a vague sincerity, but a rigorous adherence to the Primary Precepts of the Natural Law—those moral absolutes knowable by reason and essential for justice and the social order.

To maintain the state of grace (Zoe), the Invincibly Ignorant must remain free from Mortal Sins against the Natural Law, which include:

Against God: Culpable Idolatry, Blasphemy, and the willful failure to seek the Truth.
Against Life: Murder (The Blood of Abel), grave assault, and the oppression of the vulnerable (Widows and Orphans).
Against Justice: Grave theft, defrauding the laborer of wages (Cry of the Oppressed), and malicious destruction of reputation (Calumny).
Against Nature: Adultery (violating the justice of the bond), Sodomy, and the intentional frustration of the procreative end of the sɛҳuąƖ act.

While the Invincibly Ignorant are not bound by the Positive Laws of the Church (e.g., Mass attendance), the difficulty of maintaining this purity without sacramental medicine underscores the immense peril of being outside the Ark of the Church.

III. Prefatory Definitions: The Grammar of Eternity

Term	Latin Equivalent	Definition and Theological Function
Zoe (Eternal Life)	Aeternam Vitam	The Interior State of Grace (Spiritual Vitality). Accessible via "Divine Light." It secures the soul against Hell.
Soteria (Salvation)	Salvari	The Juridical Status of being "Rescued," clothed in the Baptismal Character, and granted immediate access to the Beatific Vision (BV).
The Debt of Nature	Poena Damni	The remaining spiritual deficit (lack of the Baptismal Character) after justification. Distinct from the guilt of sin.
Invincibly Ignorant	N/A	Persons who, through no fault of their own, adhere to the Natural Law and cooperate with sufficient grace.

IV. Part I: The "Pius IX Paradox" and the Miracle Fallacy

The core conflict arises from holding two absolute truths: the necessity of the visible Church (EENS) and the justice of God.

The Exclusion: "Out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved [salvari]..." (Singulari Quadam)
The Exception: "Able to attain eternal life [aeternam vitam] by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)

Rejecting the "Miracle Fallacy": Standard neo-scholastic theology often claims God sends an angel to baptize the Invincibly Ignorant at death. We reject this because it renders the Pope's statement redundant. The Pope's words only have force if we affirm that sufficient grace operates within the state of ignorance.

V. Part II: The Sacramental Economy and the Bar to Soteria

1. Justification vs. Purification: The Distinction of Debt

Guilt Removed (Zoe Achieved): "Divine Light" facilitates an Act of Perfect Charity. In accordance with the Council of Trent, this act necessarily includes a subjective implicit desire (votum) to fulfill all that God requires. This removes the enmity with God.
Debt Remains (Soteria Bar): The debt—the lack of the Baptismal Character—remains. This Character is the objective "Key" to the immediate Beatific Vision.

2. The Mechanism of Delay: Actual vs. Sanctifying Grace

The delay of the Beatific Vision is rooted in the nature of the grace received:

Actual Grace: Facilitates the movement toward justification and the removal of the guilt of sin via the votum.
Sanctifying Grace (The Habit): In the ordinary economy, the permanent "habit" and the Baptismal Character are the prerequisites for the Lumen Gloriae. Without the objective "Seal," the soul has the life of God but lacks the formal capacity for the Vision.

3. The New Covenant "Limbus Patrum"

Entity	State of Grace (Guilt)	Impediment (Debt)	Intermediate Destination
OT Fathers	Possessed Grace (Zoe).	Lacked the Cross.	Limbus Patrum
The Just Nations	Possess Grace (Zoe).	Lacks the Character.	Limbo of the Just

VI. Part III: The Natural Law Standard

The Invincibly Ignorant are judged by the Primary Precepts (justice/essential order) of the Natural Law. They are not culpable for imperfections regarding Secondary Precepts which were historically conceded by God prior to Christ's restoration.

Worship: Mortal Sin = Culpable Idolatry / Blasphemy.
Marriage: Mortal Sin = Adultery (Injustice to bond).
Purity: Mortal Sin = Sodomy / Coitus Interruptus.
Justice: Mortal Sin = Murder / Grave Theft / Calumny.

VII. Part IV: Formal Scholastic Syllogisms

1. The Distinction of Justification

Major Premise: All those who possess the internal state of Grace (Zoe) are justified and protected from the pains of Hell.
Minor Premise: Pope Pius IX teaches that the Invincibly Ignorant can attain Eternal Life (Zoe) through the "Divine Light" and an upright life.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Invincibly Ignorant can be justified and protected from the pains of Hell without being formal members of the Church.

2. The Objective Requirement of the Character

Major Premise: No soul can enter the immediate Beatific Vision (Soteria) without the objective "Key" of the Baptismal Character.
Minor Premise: The Invincibly Ignorant, while possessing the subjective desire (votum), do not possess the objective Baptismal Character in this life.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Invincibly Ignorant are barred from immediate entry into the Beatific Vision upon death.

VIII. Part V: Responses to Objections and the Doctrine of Immense Peril

Objection: Does this model encourage religious indifferentism?

Response: This model actually increases the urgency of missions. By defining the "Upright Life" through the rigorous standard of the Primary Precepts of the Natural Law, we reveal that the Invincibly Ignorant are in "immense peril."

1. The Darkness of the Intellect
While the Primary Precepts of the Natural Law are knowable by reason, the human intellect is darkened by Original Sin. Without the "Light of Revelation" to clarify moral truths, the Invincibly Ignorant are easily deceived by cultural depravity and sophisticated rationalizations for intrinsic evils. Reason alone is often insufficient to penetrate the fog of a fallen world.

2. The Weakness of the Will (Concupiscence)
Knowledge of the Law does not grant the power to keep it. The Invincibly Ignorant man suffers from disordered passions (concupiscence) but lacks the "Medicinal Grace" provided by the Sacraments. Without the Eucharist to strengthen the will and Confession to restore the soul after a fall, the man is essentially attempting to climb a vertical cliff-face with broken hands. One single unrepented mortal sin forfeits Zoe.

3. The Statistical Improbability of Perseverance
To die in a state of Zoe outside the Church, a man must successfully navigate a lifetime of temptations while relying solely on "Actual Grace" and "Natural Reason." In the Catholic economy, the "Character" of Baptism and the Sacraments provide an "Ark." The Invincibly Ignorant is "treading water" in a storm. While theoretically possible to survive, it is statistically certain that most will succuмb to the exhaustion of sin.

Objection: Does this contradict the Council of Florence?

Response: Our model distinguishes between Salvation (Soteria) as immediate entry and Life (Zoe) as the state of grace. We affirm that Soteria remains exclusive to the Church’s economy. The Invincibly Ignorant who die in grace are held in a provisional state until they are formally integrated into the Body of Christ at the General Resurrection.

IX. Conclusion: The Final Triumph of the High Priest

The "Debt of Nature" is not a permanent condemnation but a provisional deprivation. At the General Resurrection, Christ makes "all things new" (Apocalypse 21:5). This universal redemptive act serves as the final, absolute application of the Laver of Regeneration to all who possess Zoe. In that moment, the lack of a temporal Sacramental Character is satisfied by the direct action of the glorified Christ.

The Invincibly Ignorant, having been preserved in a state of natural peace (Limbo of the Just), are then fully integrated into the New Heaven and New Earth. They finally attain Soteria, entering the Beatific Vision through the final triumph of Christ over the prior epoch (saeculum) of death.

X. Syllabus of Authorities

Magisterial Docuмents

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854): Dogmatic necessity of the Church.
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863): On Eternal Life for the ignorant.
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): Necessity of union with the Church.
Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (Session VI): Necessity of the votum.

Scholastic & Scriptural Sources

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (I-II, Q. 94): Natural Law framework.
Sacramental Ontology: The theology of the Indelible Character.
Apocalypse 21:5: The promise of Christ to "make all things new."

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences (Read 58662 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Angelus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Angelus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Angelus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Angelus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Ladislaus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

gladius_veritatis

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Angelus

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences