Author Topic: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (Read 4012 times)

Mark 79 · « **Reply #45 on:** December 10, 2019, 09:26:19 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 10, 2019, 03:01:32 PM

I recall reading a quotation from an old catechism or Catholic book from the 19th century, that said the reason Jews even today are said to worship the same God as Catholics, is because the religion of the Old Testament was revealed. From what I recall reading he said, or at least seemed to imply, that believing in a revealed religion - even if they were mistaken on certain aspects of what had been revealed - is what determined if the religion believed in the true God.

I believe the quotation I'm referring to was posted here, but I can't locate it. If anyone has it, please post it again.

тαℓмυdic Judaism is NOT the revealed religion. It is the man-made religion of the Pharisees that God Himself damned.
Karaite Jews are the only sect I know that follows Mosaic Judaism and rejects the тαℓмυd. For their belief, Karaites are not allowed the so-called "right of return" to [counterfeit] Israel, but must first convert to тαℓмυdic Judaism.

Jaynek · « **Reply #46 on:** December 11, 2019, 06:41:48 AM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 10, 2019, 01:43:50 PM

As St. Thomas explains, idols are sensible objects, so this quotation cannot be used in support of the position that Muslims worship a different God. Again, I am not arguing that they do worship the one true God (although in a false way). I'm just trying to gain clarity on why they don't. I'm open to any and all arguments either way.

The God that we worship is three Persons in one God. The second person of this Triune God became incarnate and died on a cross for the salvation of mankind. These facts are underlying assumptions in every act of worship. We worship Him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We worship in recognition that we could not save ourselves but depend on God.

This is not the God that Muslims worship, nor is this the God that Jews worship. They may use the same word that we do, but that word means something different to them.

The German word "Handy" means a cell phone. The English word "handy" means convenient or practical. The word seems to be the same in both languages but means different things. Similarly, the word "God" may seem the same in different religions but refers to different concepts of God.

Praeter · « **Reply #47 on:** December 11, 2019, 09:08:46 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 11, 2019, 06:41:48 AM

The God that we worship is three Persons in one God.

Vatican I teaches that we can know God - the true God - by the light of reason, yet we cannot know that God is a Trinity of Persons by the light of reason. Therefore, it is possible to know the true God without knowing He is three Persons.

Quote

The second person of this Triune God became incarnate and died on a cross for the salvation of mankind.

We cannot know the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate by the light of human reason, yet God can be known by the light of reason. Therefore, once again, this proves that the knowledge of the Incarnation is not necessary to know the true God.

Quote

These facts are underlying assumptions in every act of worship. We worship Him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We worship in recognition that we could not save ourselves but depend on God.

If every act of worship required knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, there would have been no worship of God before these truths were revealed with the coming of Christ. Yet men did worship God before the coming of Christ.

Quote

This is not the God that Muslims worship, nor is this the God that Jews worship.

What God did the Jews worship during the Old Testament? Was it the Blessed Trinity or a false god?

Praeter · « **Reply #48 on:** December 11, 2019, 09:14:38 AM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on December 10, 2019, 09:26:19 PM

тαℓмυdic Judaism is NOT the revealed religion. It is the man-made religion of the Pharisees that God Himself damned.
Karaite Jews are the only sect I know that follows Mosaic Judaism and rejects the тαℓмυd. For their belief, Karaites are not allowed the so-called "right of return" to [counterfeit] Israel, but must first convert to тαℓмυdic Judaism.

Do the Karaite Jews worship the true God?

Mark 79 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 11, 2019, 12:16:55 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 11, 2019, 09:14:38 AM

Do the Karaite Jews worship the true God?

I have not done a "deep dive" in Karaite theology and I am not a trained theologian, so I can only hazard a tentative guess.

Why do you ask?

Praeter · « **Reply #50 on:** December 11, 2019, 02:09:14 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on December 11, 2019, 12:16:55 PM

I have not done a "deep dive" in Karaite theology and I am not a trained theologian, so I can only hazard a tentative guess.

Why do you ask?

I was just wondering if you worshiped the same god as the unbelieving Jews.

Jaynek · « **Reply #51 on:** December 11, 2019, 02:47:23 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 11, 2019, 09:08:46 AM

Vatican I teaches that we can know God - the true God - by the light of reason, yet we cannot know that God is a Trinity of Persons by the light of reason. Therefore, it is possible to know the true God without knowing He is three Persons.

We cannot know the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate by the light of human reason, yet God can be known by the light of reason. Therefore, once again, this proves that the knowledge of the Incarnation is not necessary to know the true God.

You are conflating knowing God with worshipping God. These are not the same thing, especially not in the context of the Vatican I docuмent, Dei Filius. This expression was traditionally understood as saying that we can know that God exists using reason, as is done in the cosmological arguments of St. Thomas, for example. And the statement about what is known by reason is not the main teaching but introduces a passage on the necessity of revelation. The whole idea is that, while we can know that God exists through human reason, nevertheless revelation is absolutely necessary for divine goods such as salvation and worship. It says,

"Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him" [1Cor 2:9]."

The passage as a whole is practically saying the opposite of what you conclude by only considering its opening phrase.

Quote from: Praeter on December 11, 2019, 09:08:46 AM

If every act of worship required knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, there would have been no worship of God before these truths were revealed with the coming of Christ. Yet men did worship God before the coming of Christ.

What God did the Jews worship during the Old Testament? Was it the Blessed Trinity or a false god?

The revelation of the Old Testament is true and involved genuine worship. With our knowledge now, we can see the types, foreshadowing and prophecies that lead to Christ. The Jews of the time could only understand it imperfectly. For example, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is written with a plural ending, but they could not have understood the significance of that. They had a true but limited revelation.

But the religion practiced by the people now called Jews is very different. They have no temple, no sacrifices, and no priesthood from the line of Aaron. They practice тαℓмυdic Judaism which places the traditions of men above revelation. And they explicitly reject revelation through Christ and the Church. There is a huge difference between being given a limited revelation (Old Testament Jews) and turning away from the full revelation when it has been offered (тαℓмυdic Jews).

DecemRationis · « **Reply #52 on:** December 11, 2019, 03:39:56 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 11, 2019, 09:08:46 AM

Vatican I teaches that we can know God - the true God - by the light of reason, yet we cannot know that God is a Trinity of Persons by the light of reason. Therefore, it is possible to know the true God without knowing He is three Persons.

We cannot know the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate by the light of human reason, yet God can be known by the light of reason. Therefore, once again, this proves that the knowledge of the Incarnation is not necessary to know the true God.

If every act of worship required knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, there would have been no worship of God before these truths were revealed with the coming of Christ. Yet men did worship God before the coming of Christ.

What God did the Jews worship during the Old Testament? Was it the Blessed Trinity or a false god?

Well said and thought.

As to the last questions: has nothing changed since the full revelation of the Gospel which must qualify any true response?

If one rejects baptism after being told of its necessity, it's sin and bars justification or removes it. The Church seems to say - e.g., in the Roman Catechism and I believe elsewhere - that this applies based upon the historic fact of the revelation of the Gospel (and John 3) to mankind, and not to the individual man. St. Thomas would also read a historical change into what must be believed (admittedly moving from baptism), not based on individual revelation to the particular man, but on general and to the mass of mankind.

God doesn't change, but He apparently determines that what men must believe about Him does. Jews believed what God wanted men to believe about Him at that time. He chooses the who and the what or how of salvation, and what men must believe about Him, which changes with time, apparently.

I look forward to your response.

Praeter · « **Reply #53 on:** December 11, 2019, 07:52:28 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 11, 2019, 03:39:56 PM

Well said and thought.

As to the last questions ["This is not the God that Muslims worship, nor is this the God that Jews worship"]: has nothing changed since the full revelation of the Gospel which must qualify any true response?

If one rejects baptism after being told of its necessity, it's sin and bars justification or removes it. The Church seems to say - e.g., in the Roman Catechism and I believe elsewhere - that this applies based upon the historic fact of the revelation of the Gospel (and John 3) to mankind, and not to the individual man. St. Thomas would also read a historical change into what must be believed (admittedly moving from baptism), not based on individual revelation to the particular man, but on general and to the mass of mankind.

The question I’m try to sort out does not pertain to salvation. I know the Muslim religion can’t save anyone. What I am wondering is if there’s any way to say Muslims worship the true God, but in a false way. The answer really comes down to two question that I am still trying to work through - one question is positive and the other is negative.

The positive question is, what is the minimum knowledge of God that is required to for a rational creature to believe in the true God? The answer is probably, a) that God exists as a Supreme being, b) that he is the creator, c) that he is good, and d) that His providence governs the world.

Presuming that is right, and presuming a person possesses the positive knowledge necessary to believe in the true God, the next question is: what errors about God would so corrupt the person’s understanding of God that, even though they continue to believe He is the creator, that He is good, and that His providence governs the world, they no longer believe in the true God? In my mind, that is what the question boils down to, and I’m still trying to arrive at the answer. I’m getting close, but I’m not there yet.

One of the reasons I’m considering this is because one of the tactics of the Modernists is saying something that is technically true (if you can make the right distinctions), but gives the impression saying what is false, and therefore results in simply Catholics believing what is false. That’s how they lead so many Catholics into error. But the same tactic also has the opposite effect of causing Traditional Catholics to reject, as false, a statement that is actually true. The one diabolical tactic results in errors on the left and right – the one believes what is false, and the other rejects what is true. I see this all the time with Traditional Catholics, and that's why I’m looking into this issue. And let us not forget that we have a sainted Pope who, in context, taught that Catholics and Muslims do indeed worship the one God.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #54 on:** December 11, 2019, 09:07:38 PM »

The false accusation against Pope St. Gregory VII was thoroughly refuted by CatholicTrue more than 4 years ago: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/fr-cekadas-version-of-the-universal-ordinary-magisterium/msg471369/#msg471369 I'm surprised that Ladislaus forgot that discussion. Here is the relevant part for those who are link-challenged:

CatholicTrue said:

Quote

Ladislaus, your translation of Gregory VII's letter is wrong. Gregory VII does not say that the Muslim king worships the same God (eundem Deum) as Catholics. Rather, he says that he and the king both confess one God (unum Deum). The two are quite different.

In an attempt to be friendly to a king who had helped Christians, he said that we confess one God. It is true that Muslims confess, or claim to believe, one God. It was also a non-dogmatic letter to a king who was a potential convert, not a formal statement of doctrine for the entire Church about Islam. Gregory VII taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Vatican II's statement is quite different and heretical. In addition to teaching that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics (which is blasphemous and false), Vatican II esteemed Islam itself (and the Muslims collectively) in view of their religious practices. That is heresy. You can actually hear a debate on this text of Vatican II, in which it is proven that Benedict XVI himself admitted that Vatican II esteemed the RELIGION of Islam itself.

In other words, the heretical nature of Vatican II's teaching on Islam in Nostra Aetate is proven by those who enforced Vatican II itself:

Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect FOR THE ISLAMIC RELIGION, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration Nostra Aetate #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right.”

Benedict XVI, Catechesis, August 24, 2005: “This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as ESTEEM for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.”

Notice that Benedict XVI admitted that Nostra Aetate taught esteem for the false religion of Islam itself. Esteeming (and hence approving) a religion the Church officially considers to be abominable and diabolical is heresy.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #55 on:** December 11, 2019, 09:24:38 PM »

A fraternal warning to all those who are tempted to drag a Catholic pope through the mud (not to mention a saint!), if you feel a need to cast doubt or even derision upon a true pope, you might want to re-evaluate your position. There is probably something wrong with it. Catholics have always defended the legacy of the popes. Especially the pope saints. And it is not a defense based on lies. We know that Our Lord prayed that Peter's faith would not fail. Therefore we know that Peter's faith (and that of his successors) will not fail (never has, never will).

DecemRationis · « **Reply #56 on:** December 12, 2019, 01:55:58 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 11, 2019, 07:52:28 PM

The question I’m try to sort out does not pertain to salvation. I know the Muslim religion can’t save anyone. What I am wondering is if there’s any way to say Muslims worship the true God, but in a false way. The answer really comes down to two question that I am still trying to work through - one question is positive and the other is negative.

Ok . . . but why do we need to wonder that? Curiosity killed the cat.

Your observation regarding Vatican I - God can be known by reason, ergo . . - was not speculation but an astute observation based on the available and observable data.

The positive question is, what is the minimum knowledge of God that is required to for a rational creature to believe in the true God? The answer is probably, a) that God exists as a Supreme being, b) that he is the creator, c) that he is good, and d) that His providence governs the world.

Ok. It's fine to speculate, but then again . . . see above. Others have speculated differently. Msgr. Fenton noted, in the late 40s, that the common opinion of theologians was that supernatural faith required belief in the Trinity and Incarnation as well.

See, the necessary faith is supernatural. It is a gift from God. He gives as He pleases. Why would God give someone something less than faith in His Son to save that person after He came to earth and made His point and fulfilled His plan on the Holy, bloody Cross? His plan included setting the stage,certainly, with the faith of the Israel in the one God in the OT. But that was an intermediate stage setting us up for the grand revelation and wondrous work of His Son. Why would he go backwards?

Your speculation has a bit of humanism about it. You know, how could God "damn" all those Muslims, Jews, etc. now? But again, the necessary faith is supernatural and a gift from God. Molinism and a denial of the Catholic truth of Predestination, creeping along with human "progress" . . . your speculation has that air.

Presuming that is right, and presuming a person possesses the positive knowledge necessary to believe in the true God, the next question is: what errors about God would so corrupt the person’s understanding of God that, even though they continue to believe He is the creator, that He is good, and that His providence governs the world, they no longer believe in the true God? In my mind, that is what the question boils down to, and I’m still trying to arrive at the answer. I’m getting close, but I’m not there yet.

Your smart and I don't want to interrupt your thought necessarily, but want to throw out, as maybe a bit of an anchor or rein, the thoughts above.

One of the reasons I’m considering this is because one of the tactics of the Modernists is saying something that is technically true (if you can make the right distinctions), but gives the impression saying what is false, and therefore results in simply Catholics believing what is false.

Astute point. You are not the only one to notice it. Paul VI did in Auctorem Fidei.

That’s how they lead so many Catholics into error. But the same tactic also has the opposite effect of causing Traditional Catholics to reject, as false, a statement that is actually true. The one diabolical tactic results in errors on the left and right – the one believes what is false, and the other rejects what is true. I see this all the time with Traditional Catholics, and that's why I’m looking into this issue. And let us not forget that we have a sainted Pope who, in context, taught that Catholics and Muslims do indeed worship the one God.

Now that's also astute and strikes me as somewhat original.

I appreciate the reply and hope you don't take my remarks too negatively; they weren't intended to be such.

Oh . . . and I don't think you dealt with my observations about God requiring different things at different times. We are not dealing with an undifferentiated mass, but one which has layers in it, like those layers you see in fossils showing various time periods, for example.

I think this is a relevant observation that needs to be taken account of here.

poche · « **Reply #57 on:** December 14, 2019, 11:07:42 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on December 11, 2019, 09:14:38 AM

Do the Karaite Jews worship the true God?

According to St. Justin, Father of the Church, they do worship the true God;
Justin: There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing, but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now —(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incuмbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law — namely, Christ — has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: 'Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, you kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in My arm?' And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt' Jeremiah 31:31-32). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircuмcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01282.htm

Mark 79 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 15, 2019, 09:03:20 AM »

Lord, this is why we beg the Father in your Holy Name to drive Poche from this place.

Poche is a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture.

Poche willfully falsified the Matthew 16:18. Poche substituted "you" for "it" to bolster his equally phony contention about Jorge Begroglio.

Quote from: poche on November 07, 2019, 04:55:39 AM
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to Peter
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301

Repeatedly Poche has partially quoted your Pope St. Pius X to falsify his attitude toward the Jews. Representative examples: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407 You willfully omitted:

"We are unable to favor this [Zionist] movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people.... If you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with priests and churches to baptize all of you". (Pope St. Pius X)

Poche also lied when he claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082

Poche has claimed that Jorge has “the same view” on the Jews as Pope St. Pius X. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 Directly to their faces Pope St. Pius X told the Jews of Jesus Christ and their need to convert. Jorge is the diametric opposite, not “the same.” Jorge confirms тαℓмυdic Jews in their Faith and teaches their heretical dogmas to Catholics. Several examples here: http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope

Here is Jorge's full allocution: https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/

First, there is not one word about the тαℓмυd.

Second, contrary to Poche's assertion that Jorge preached "how Christianity is distinct from the Jєωιѕн religion," https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 Jorge uses the metaphors of "the Open Door," "the common way," "synodality," Instead of making a distinction, Jorge proposes an indifferentist blend of Christ and Belial: "relation between faith in Christ and the observance of the Law of Moses." The only "relation" recognized by the perennial and infallible Magisterium is that the Law of Moses died with Christ on the Cross—and, as expected, that dogma is entirely missing in Jorge's subversion.

Third, Jorge cannot bring himself to teach de fide supersessionism, that the Law of Moses is dead, so instead he infers тαℓмυdic Noahidism: "ask them only to reject idolatry and all its expressions." So Jorge did not "preach against the тαℓмυd" as you claimed. Jorge did the exact opposite; he preached тαℓмυdic Noahidism.

Poche constructed three lies in your one run-on sentence!

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #59 on:** December 16, 2019, 12:39:06 PM »

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that Muslims can be saved, it says 161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm

It is obvious from that statement that Muslims, Jews and other deniers of Christ's Divinity, even if they believe there is one God, cannot be saved; for believing in Jesus Christ is necessary to obtain that salvation that He obtained for us. The presentation of EENS, which occurs much later in the Catechism, is also entirely orthodox:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.³³⁶
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."³³⁸

(1) It doesn't say those invincibly ignorant can be saved as they are. It says those invincibly ignorant will be led by God "to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him", i.e. to saving faith in Jesus Christ, by which they can obtain His salvation. It also says (1) The Church has the obligation and the sacred right to evangelize all men. And (2) all who are knowingly separated from the Church - which means, even those Christians to whom the necessity of the Church has been proposed, but who, by obstinate separation, have become formal heretics or schismatics - cannot be saved. These three teachings cover the basic doctrine of EENS as Tradition teaches it.

Author Topic: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (Read 4012 times)

Mark 79

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Jaynek

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Mark 79

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Jaynek

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

DecemRationis

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Clemens Maria

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Clemens Maria

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

DecemRationis

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

poche

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Mark 79

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Nishant Xavier

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?