Author Topic: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. (Read 9372 times)

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #45 on:** December 30, 2023, 12:20:08 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 30, 2023, 09:06:01 AM

.

How do you post such manure with a clear conscience?

A reply to indisputably refute this BS post would be TLDR and would fall on deaf ears.

It’s getting harder and harder for me to make excuses for your heretical beliefs. You seriously need to take a step back and question your thought process.

2Vermont · « **Reply #46 on:** December 30, 2023, 12:49:43 PM »

And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. - Pius IX

Excellent. A poster on another thread told me there is no such thing as Church infallibility. This is support for that.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #47 on:** December 30, 2023, 01:06:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 30, 2023, 11:13:42 AM

Stubborn, I will pray for your conversion, because, as it stands, you are a pertinacious manifest heretic. You've been corrected repeatedly that you promote heresy, but you obstinately refuse to retract it. Of course you're your own Magisterium. YOU decide what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition, just like the Old Catholics did. St. Thomas taught this clearly that when you reject the Magisterium as your proximate rule of faith, you effectively make your own private judgment your own Magisterium.

So Stubborn is right and the Old Catholics were wrong, because Stubborn says so ... not because Pius IX and the Vatican Council said so ... but because Stubborn said so. Got it. Can you even begin to grasp the absurdity of this?

Unfortunately for him, I think you are right. This is a prime example of pertinacity. Too much self trust, too much confidence in his own judgement. This discussion should make us all humble ourselves because we are all capable of losing the Faith but for God’s grace.

When I see people like Stubborn it makes me think of these passages from Scripture:

The Abomination of Desolation

(Mark 13:14-23; Luke 21:20-24)

15When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. 16Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: 17And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. 19And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. 20But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. 21For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. 22And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. 23Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. 24For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** December 30, 2023, 02:55:36 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on December 30, 2023, 01:06:09 PM

Unfortunately for him, I think you are right. This is a prime example of pertinacity. Too much self trust, too much confidence in his own judgement. This discussion should make us all humble ourselves because we are all capable of losing the Faith but for God’s grace.

When I see people like Stubborn it makes me think of these passages from Scripture:

Yes, a Catholic understanding of Catholicism must seem entirely heretical through sede eyes.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #49 on:** December 30, 2023, 03:28:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 30, 2023, 10:46:51 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 11:40:59 AM
Quote
They were wrong because they wrongfully did not believe that the doctrine being defined ex cathedra, was always the doctrine of the Church. They wrongfully believed it to be a new doctrine.

Who determines whether they were right or wrong, Stubborn, you?

Yes, he does, under the direction of God. The primary cause is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Why did Peter "get it right"?

Quote

Matthew 16:6-7

6 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

Respondens Simon Petrus dixit : Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi.

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Respondens autem Jesus, dixit ei : Beatus es Simon Bar Jona : quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in caelis est.

https://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47016.htm

Scripture is consistent over and over again, as is tradition, our greatest doctors and saints - St. Augustine, St. Thomas.

Quote

Acts 17:11-12

11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

Hi autem erant nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae, qui susceperunt verbum cuм omni aviditate, quotidie scrutantes Scripturas, si haec ita se haberent.

12 And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.

Et multi quidem crediderunt ex eis, et mulierum gentilium honestarum, et viri non pauci.

Why did the Bereans who believed "get it right"?

You see, Stubborn is right: the elect "get it right" because they "search the Scriptures" and "Tradition" with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and they know the novel and false when they see it, as they know the "abomination of desolation" when they "see" it, not because someone tells them it's "the abomination of desolation."

Quote

Matthew 24:15

15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.

cuм ergo videritis abominationem desolationis, quae dicta est a Daniele propheta, stantem in loco sancto, qui legit, intelligat :

16 Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains:

tunc qui in Judaea sunt, fugiant ad montes :

https://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47024.htm

It's not the "sexy" answer, the answer that's going to generate pages of threads - it's a slammed door on debate, closed by God. As I said before, "men" don't like it. It's too "simple." It takes them out of the equation. They are left with nothing to "argue over," and "figure out."

The elect are guided, by the Scriptures, by Tradition, and ultimately by the Holy Ghost. They don't reject the Conciliar religion because a "pope" or the bishops say so - they say the opposite.

The elect "see" and "know," because it is so. They do. And they will.

Quote

2 Timothy 2:17-19

17 And their speech spreadeth like a canker: of whom are Hymeneus and Philetus:

et sermo eorum ut cancer serpit : ex quibus est Hymenaeus et Philetus,

18 Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some.

qui a veritate exciderunt, dicentes resurrectionem esse jam factam, et subverterunt quorumdam fidem.

19 But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.

Sed firmum fundamentum Dei stat, habens signaculum hoc : cognovit Dominus qui sunt ejus, et discedat ab iniquitate omnis qui nominat nomen Domini.

I don't want to derail the discussion, and by all means continue. But that's why St. Peter and everyone else who got it right, and will get it right, "get it right" - the Lord knows his own, and reveals the "right" to them. They avoid the error of Hymeneus and Philetus, and the Old Catholic error, because it's God will, and God reveals the truth to them.

Quote

John 19:37

Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.

Dixit itaque ei Pilatus : Ergo rex es tu? Respondit Jesus : Tu dicis quia rex sum ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati : omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam.

Alright, I'll shut up, and try to not comment again here, but the above is the truth, and a truth that alas is not said anymore, and has basically disappeared from the tradition, with, as we know, much else.

Stubborn · « **Reply #50 on:** December 30, 2023, 03:37:51 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on December 30, 2023, 12:20:08 PM

It’s getting harder and harder for me to make excuses for your heretical beliefs. You seriously need to take a step back and question your thought process.

Although sedes like you label this declaration as "heretical beliefs," this declaration sufficiently sums up what you call my "heretical beliefs."

I could put up various Catholic oaths and professions of faith and such, but this suffices. I suggest you read it very slowly and very carefully, and over again if you need to. And whether you agree or not, the chaos and confusion for faithful Catholics within the Church was much worse in 1974 than it is today.

Bold in the original.

http://www.sspxthepriesthood.com/society.shtml

Declaration
By
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X
Rome, 21 November 1974

We adhere with our whole heart and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernists and neo-protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.

All these reforms have, indeed, contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the Priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and of the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to naturalistic and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries, and catechetics, a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic faith, such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". (Gal. 1,8).

Is this not what the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if a certain contradiction is apparent in his words and actions, as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the church. The "lex orandi" (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed, without changing the "lex credendi" (law of belief). The new Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or Pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age-old Magisterium.

This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, Is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations.

For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practised by the Church of always, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and her institutions, and codified in the books which appeared before the modernist influence of the late Council. Meanwhile, we wait for the true light of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome. By acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saints Joseph and Saint Pius X, of remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of St. Peter, and of being "fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen" (Faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost. Amen)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #51 on:** December 31, 2023, 04:07:52 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on December 30, 2023, 06:21:18 AM

It’s really amusing how you try to corner those of us who hold the sedevacantist position into an argument that’s not actually our argument. Good try! Now you really should answer Lads question….

But, I will appease you first.

1) No one is denying the definition of Papal Infallibility as expressed at the Vatican Council, the most you can accuse us of is *expanding* the definition, which is not the case and wouldn’t be heretical.

2) Infallibility is *not* limited to excathadra pronouncements. In other words, everything that is infallible does not necessarily have a dogmatic pronouncement.

3) Any official teaching coming from the Church via her normal channels or directly from the pope himself is, at the very least, infallibly safe.

4) *Nothing* in those teachings can, in any way, be harmful to souls. In other words, they are ALL infallibly safe.

Now your turn, answer Lad’s question…..

Thank you for the answer QVD. As I thought, you are making everything the Pope says 'officially' via the Church's 'normal channels' infallible. That is simply not Catholic and undermines the dogma of Infallibility. Please read it again.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #52 on:** December 31, 2023, 04:13:38 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on December 30, 2023, 08:13:05 AM

Folks keep bringing up the downvotes on all these threads. Just to be clear, my downvoting was disabled. Which I do not complain about. I also don’t mind racking up the downvotes. It doesn’t even matter. At least I got my old account back. You can’t downvote the immutable truth.

That's good to know, Centro, we'll keep it a level playing field in that case. You can't downvote me, so I won't downvote you. We'll just tell each other what we think! As you say, it's not about us, it's about the truth.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #53 on:** December 31, 2023, 04:20:04 AM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur on December 30, 2023, 08:36:01 AM

Gladly. The reason why Sedevacantists are not condemned like the Old Catholics is simply because the Old Catholics refused to submit to Pope Pius IX: A True Pope. Sedevacantists, on the other hand, refuse to submit to A False Pope.

But that's not the issue.
The issue is why sedevacantists, just like the Old Catholics, refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I and try to make the Pope infallible without any conditions.
You may have missed the other thread where I cornered Ladislaus and he started this thread as a ruse to dodge the question.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #54 on:** December 31, 2023, 04:45:18 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 31, 2023, 04:07:52 AM

Thank you for the answer QVD. As I thought, you are making everything the Pope says 'officially' via the Church's 'normal channels' infallible. That is simply not Catholic and undermines the dogma of Infallibility. Please read it again.

Are you having a difficult time understanding this discussion or just grasping for straws trying not to admit that you’re wrong? I think it’s the latter.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #55 on:** December 31, 2023, 04:49:45 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 30, 2023, 08:36:11 AM

Yes, it's a profound question that I got to thinking about some time ago. You can say that we must accept the definition of papal infallibility because it was an infallible pronouncement. But, since papal infallibility was only defined by Vatican I, it would constitute circular reasoning ... unless there was some other criterion already there to prevent Vatican I from having erred, as the Old Catholics claimed. You have to believe in some kind of infallibility before believing that Vatican I was unable to err in its definition.

True Ladislaus and Decem, evidently faith is a grace from God. How can we ever thank God enough for such a precious gift, and let us do it every day!
But the Faith eminently conforms to reason.
Every Protestant who ever converted to the Faith understood that Our Lord Jesus Christ, who proved that He was God, founded a TEACHING CHURCH, an INFALLIBLE teaching Church, which He commanded us to HEAR under pain of damnation: He who believeth not shall be condemned! He who hears you, hears Me, and he who hears Me, heareth Him that sent Me.
Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and to thee do I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven... whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven.
Going therefore TEACH all things whatsoever I have commanded... and BEHOLD I AM WITH YOU all days even to the consummation of the world.
Our Lord gave infallible teaching authority to Peter to ensure that His Church would continue its mission of preaching the truth upon which our salvation depends to the point where we can be certain that by hearing the Church we are hearing Our Father in Heaven.
We have it all right there in Holy Scripture, and we find it then passed down through Sacred Tradition.
If the Church does not have the infallible power to decree when it is infallible, then there can be no infallibility at all and ultimately it undermines all religion and God, who it Truth itself, has given us no way to know Him, therefore no way to love Him.

As I heard Bishop Williamson put it so well, many years ago: How could the Lord God put us on this earth, require us to leave by the truth, and then leave the truth inaccessible to us? There is a truth, and that truth is accessible to everybody... Now my words: it could not be so, if we did not have an infallible teaching authority, which is the Church, obviously.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #56 on:** December 31, 2023, 05:12:25 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 31, 2023, 04:49:45 AM

True Ladislaus and Decem, evidently faith is a grace from God. How can we ever thank God enough for such a precious gift, and let us do it every day!
But the Faith eminently conforms to reason.
Every Protestant who ever converted to the Faith understood that Our Lord Jesus Christ, who proved that He was God, founded a TEACHING CHURCH, an INFALLIBLE teaching Church, which He commanded us to HEAR under pain of damnation: He who believeth not shall be condemned! He who hears you, hears Me, and he who hears Me, heareth Him that sent Me.
Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and to thee do I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven... whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven.
Going therefore TEACH all things whatsoever I have commanded... and BEHOLD I AM WITH YOU all days even to the consummation of the world.
Our Lord gave infallible teaching authority to Peter to ensure that His Church would continue its mission of preaching the truth upon which our salvation depends to the point where we can be certain that by hearing the Church we are hearing Our Father in Heaven.
We have it all right there in Holy Scripture, and we find it then passed down through Sacred Tradition.
If the Church does not have the infallible power to decree when it is infallible, then there can be no infallibility at all and ultimately it undermines all religion and God, who it Truth itself, has given us no way to know Him, therefore no way to love Him.

As I heard Bishop Williamson put it so well, many years ago: How could the Lord God put us on this earth, require us to leave by the truth, and then leave the truth inaccessible to us? There is a truth, and that truth is accessible to everybody... Now my words: it could not be so, if we did not have an infallible teaching authority, which is the Church, obviously.

In other words you are claiming that the NO church is synonymous with the Catholic Church and is actually the same “infallible teaching authority” for nearly 2000 years?

If this is the correct understanding of what you are trying to convey, then the Church has no real teaching function other than making dogmatic pronouncements every hundred years or so. If this is the correct understanding, the Church can have councils that contradict previous infallible teachings, give dubious sacraments, give encyclicals, bulls and other docuмents that promote not only error, but encourage sin.

Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #57 on:** December 31, 2023, 05:20:19 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 31, 2023, 04:07:52 AM

Thank you for the answer QVD. As I thought, you are making everything the Pope says 'officially' via the Church's 'normal channels' infallible. That is simply not Catholic and undermines the dogma of Infallibility. Please read it again.

Do you agree with this?: Infallibility is not limited to excathadra pronouncements. .

Do you agree with this?: Everything that is infallible does not necessarily have a dogmatic definition.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #58 on:** December 31, 2023, 05:31:24 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 30, 2023, 09:03:07 AM

No, I'm asking you to explain why you ACCEPT the solemn definition of papal infallibility. You can't say that it's because it was a teaching that met the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I, since that's circular reasoning.

While I don't want the thread to derailed, you make a logically false assertion that simply because I hold that the Church enjoys an infallibility outside of the strict limits of papal infallibility that I REJECT the dogma of papal infallibility? Uhm, Pius IX said that the reason that the Old Catholics must accept papal infallibility is BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH'S INDEFECTIBILITY. That which you claim to be contradicted by Vatican I is actually the very reason that Pius IX gives as to why Catholics must accept it to remain Catholic. So, the authority of Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is rooted in the indefectibility of the Church's teaching. You claim that Vatican I defined something that precluded the very foundation on which its authority rests?

You've also never refuted the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre where he stated that the papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost and protected in such a way as to preclude the degree of destruction perpetrated by the Conciliar Church.

So there is your answer to this above, Lad.
There is no circular reasoning involved as is plain for all to see.
Of course the Church has defected if it cannot infallibly teach the truth Our Lord entrusted to it.
That is why you, along with QVD, Hank and MOS must all accept the Church's definition of precisely when it enjoys, by the divine assistance promised to it in Blessed Peter, that infallibility which Our Divine Redeemer willed it to have in defining faith and morals:

- we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  - when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    - that is, when,
    - in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    - in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    - he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  - he possesses,
    - by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  - that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  - Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

No Catholic could possibly be so bold, in view of such an unmistakably clear warning from Holy Mother Church, to add or subtract from this definition in any way whatsoever. No reform, no addition, no expansion, nothing is permitted but to accept this definition as it is, under pain of damnation.

This is the very infallibility that Our Divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy by the divine assistance promised to blessed Peter. Precisely this. Exactly this. It is clear.

You can read all the commentators you want, and you will see that this is exactly how it was understood before and after the Council, exactly in the same manner as St Robert Bellarmine understood it and all the authorities cited by him as I demonstrated to you earlier.

Exactly the same manner in which Archbishop Lefebvre understood it, as I also demonstrated to you with the quote from the conference to the Sisters of St Michel en Brenne.

Submit Ladislaus.
Submit QVD.
Let us remain Catholic.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #59 on:** December 31, 2023, 05:43:16 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on December 31, 2023, 05:12:25 AM

In other words you are claiming that the NO church is synonymous with the Catholic Church and is actually the same “infallible teaching authority” for nearly 2000 years?

If this is the correct understanding of what you are trying to convey, then the Church has no real teaching function other than making dogmatic pronouncements every hundred years or so. If this is the correct understanding, the Church can have councils that contradict previous infallible teachings, give dubious sacraments, give encyclicals, bulls and other docuмents that promote not only error, but encourage sin.

Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?

The Pope, while he remains Pope, can use that charism to settle disputed matters. Read the Catholic commentaries, that is what it is for.
The Faith of Our Fathers, the true sacraments, these are not disputed matters, and so it is clear what Catholics ought to do to remain faithful to the Church, even if the pastors of the Church fall into that category that Our Lord warned us of 'beware of false shepherds who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves' how many similar quotes.
Our Faith is essentially Tradition, as Archbishop Lefebvre so often said, and the function of the Magisterium is to hand down this Tradition, and the very yardstick by which it is infallible in its Ordinary teaching is this very Tradition.
Yes, the Church has a great teaching function outside of its Extraordinary Magisterium, and it does indeed receive special guidance from the Holy Ghost for this function, yet its pastors are not guaranteed infallibility in this function and it is not impossible that instead of guarding the deposit and handing it down faithfully that they be unfaithful.

Author Topic: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. (Read 9372 times)

Quo vadis Domine

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

2Vermont

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Quo vadis Domine

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Stubborn

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

DecemRationis

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Stubborn

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Plenus Venter

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Plenus Venter

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Plenus Venter

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Quo vadis Domine

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Plenus Venter

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Quo vadis Domine

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Quo vadis Domine

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Plenus Venter

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.

Plenus Venter

Re: R&R: Explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.