Vatican II not infallible??

Asimis said:

Like it was already noted by PeterPaul, the fact that there can be confusion like for example with the VII documents does not meant that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. If the Vatican II were infallible then it would in fact be the case.

The VII did put fort things that go contrary to several dogmas of the church. Eccumenism(for example) while an honorable thing(and one I support) should not be persued at the expense of Church doctrines like it is being done with the NO Mass today. Which as should be noted undermines and betrays the dogma of the real presence.

Another one is the dogma, that has been repeated and stated many times across the history of the Church is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, the "invisible church" to which even Hindus can belong is a novelty and it contradicts an infallible dogma.

The same goes for the necesity of baptism for salvation, another infallible dogma. Now the talk about "baptism of desire" which assumes many things and undermines it.

The thing is not that one is taking shots at the magisterium or attacking the Church, it is about keeping our foot in the ground and not falling into the line of thinking of "the pope says so, so it is right".. There is a reason why we keep track of the councils and the dogmas of the Church. Future revelation cannot contradict previous revelation.

I think that in here the words of Jesus apply: "For many will come in my name, saying,' I am he!' and will lead many astray."

Click to expand...

debiwebi said:

The point here is that they did not succeed and that the Church did prevail

Click to expand...

karenmarie said:

Highway of Life,
Hi! you sure make some good points. I dont know the answer. I often wonder if i should even be on message boards or if they are a detriment to my faith. Seems like i gain too much knowledge which leads to even more confusion. I see toooo many sides to the issues. then i am left going "huh?? duh?? err???" Sometimes i am frustrated by the amount of topics that i see in OBOB. And i agree..what is said in OBOB isnt what the average Catholic thinks or even many Priests. So maybe being here isnt smart. I dont know. something i need to think about i guess.

karen

Click to expand...

debiwebi said:

Then please do go ahead and provide the quotes that back your assertions up....

This is opinion, it is interpretation of what is going on not what is stated..... So, therefore please do provide the proof for this

Pax Christi
Debi

Click to expand...

debiwebi said:

As I was told even if it is something you do not understand, simply on the fact that the Church says it to be true, and it is handed down from the Magesterium, we should and must obey...

Click to expand...

geocajun said:

Vatican II was an ecumenical council.

CCC-891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

What I have always found true with articles such as this Karen, is that they assert a false dichotomy between "pastoral" and "ecumenical" as if ecumenical councils arent pastoral, and they also assert a contradictory philosophy which goes something like this "Vatican II is not infallible because it proposed no doctrine, but look at all these contradictory doctrines it asserted which cannot be reconciled with historic teachings. . ."
Of course, Vatican II cannot present a new teaching which contradicts historic teaching and yet, not present a new teaching at all at the same time. This however is what these folks want you to believe happened.

Click to expand...

debiwebi said:

You know sometimes, I myself have had serious misgivings and problems with things that I have studied in Vatican II, but I always remember one thing, Submission....

I am a Traditionalist, and No I do not agree with the many abuses that have taken place of this particular council. This does not mean though that, I forget that I am to be in submission.... It does not mean that I try to find ways to get around that submission....

And when I forget that I hope the Lord will always find ways to remind me that my submission should always be foremost, because in the end it is the only way to Him....

This constant compulsion to bring Vat II into contention lately, with all the threads that I have continually seen on it, is distressing to me. The fact that you have lay people trying to second guess what was meant in ecunemical councils is bothersome to me... Especially since we can see that sometimes our own Pastoral Leaders can abuse it and do not understand it when they do not have the proper knowledge about it. Do I know that we have to have some sort of knowledge so that we can be informed, so that if abuses do occur then we can see them and report them? Yes I know this... But I also know that even those that are abusing it have still been placed in their robes by the Lord, and because of this their position alone deserves our respect.

How many threads using different ways of approach are you all going to use to take shots at the Magesterium?

And before anyone thinks anything, I attend Tridentine Mass in a Marionite Rite Catholic Church. So, truly without question I am a Traditionalist, and I am about to switch my Rite from Western to Eastern within the Church itself.... I though still recognize that I sit under the authority of the Pope....

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

I'de go by this instead... Thanks geocajun for posting this.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

Click to expand...

PeterPaul said:

I understand what you mean Debi.

Its hard however to submit, not to the Magisterium or the Pope, but to the undercurrent which made those documents ambigious.

Lately, and I know I'm going to be swiped for this, I'm been thinking about another subject, possibly related.

I have read over the years two sides to a quasi-parallel issue. This issue is the Constitution and the governance of Law in the States. One side says religion and beliefs were never absolute nor even close to endorsement of religion. The other says it was always Christian, yet was twisted to be used against. They claim the Founding Fathers never intended for what we are surrounded with (Locke is often grabbed by both conservatives and progressives) today, such as 'spirits of the law'.

After some research, I'm slowly coming to the realisation that the conservatives are wrong. The Fathers had no intention of protecting religion, as much as they truly wanted to protect the State, and to defend religion only when individualised, not institutionalised (one of the reasons some of them were Anti-Catholic, as we submit to a Magisterium). They held, as Locke did, that tolerance was above all because it served the State and as long as it did not usurp the State.

Along similar lines, I started to ask myself if there were really Catholics who used the 'spirit of Vatican II' for their own ends, or if the documents themselves were not ambigious, and if so, why? Were they purposely ambigious ? Did they lean towards one end of the spectrum and conservatives read them as ambigious, only to be misappropriated by progressives?

So, a little digging into who and what were a part of the Council explains it all. No one should go to a schismatic site for their information as a groundwork for any critique of Vatican II. What they should do is read the Council from the progressive angle. Read it from their own lips, if anyone is interested. Then read what the 'conservative' complaint is. Amazingly, they are one and the same. The complaint matches the intent. Wow.

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

What you wrote makes sense to me. I like what you wrote too. I don't really know too much about the differences prior to/or after Vat. II... I don't know too much of anything... LOL ... but I'm learning and I want to say thank you to all who share their insights and opinions.

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

WOW IS RIGHT!!! okay, I can tell that I'm way over my head here, but I'm learning and thank you so much. Do you have any idea how much there is to learn? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much. Thank God. Wouldn't want to be bored or complacent...

Click to expand...

karenmarie said:

Just to clarify. I am the one that started this thread and my intention was not to take shots at the magisterium. I am a person who grew up Catholic and then left the Catholic church at age 20 because of a "born again" experience which led me to 12 years in Protestant churches. I have only recently come back to the Catholic church. this is my first time in the church as an ADULT and I am trying to learn things that i dont understand. If we are confused about something i think we need to question it. I posted this article because i didnt understand it. I dont understand alot about Vatican II or the traditionalist vs. the modernist and all that stuff. This thread has been informative to me. I have a long way to go in understanding things from a Catholic Perspective because i still have alot of "protestant thoughts" brewing inside me. So i am trying to learn. I am honestly seeking answers. Just wanted to point that out that i am not some "traditionalist trying to take pot shots at the magesterium. Rather, i am somewhat of an ignorant Catholic..trying to become informed. So when i run across something strange or odd or that i dont understand i come here seeking answers. Please be gentle. thanks.
karen

Click to expand...

plainswolf said:

Continued...



The Authenticity of the Alta Vendita Documents
The secret papers of the Alta Vendita that fell into the hands of Pope Gregory XVI embrace a period that goes from 1820 to 1846. They were published at the request of Pope Pius IX by Cretineau-Joly in his work The Roman Church and Revolution. With the brief of approbation of February 25, 1861, which he addressed to the author, Pope Pius IX guaranteed the authenticity of these documents, but he did not allow anyone to divulge the true members of the Alta Vendita implicated in this correspondence. The full text of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita is also contained in Msgr. George E. Dillon’s book, Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked. When Pope Leo XIII was presented with a copy of Msgr. Dillon’s book, he was so impressed that he ordered an Italian version to be completed and published at his own expense. In the Encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), Leo XIII called upon Catholic leaders to “tear off the mask from Freemasonry and make plain to all what it really is.” The publication of these documents is a means of “tearing off the mask.”

And if the Popes asked that these letters be published, it is because they wanted all Catholics to know the secret societies’ plans to subvert the Church from within—so that Catholics would be on their guard and, hopefully, prevent such a catastrophe from taking place.

What follows is not the entire instruction, but the sections that are most pertinent to our discussion. The document reads (with emphasis added):
Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution—the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea. . . . The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them. The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years,perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on. We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our
principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us.

What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs . . . With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this
crusade, as all the Urban IIs and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom. We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge of the supreme Vente [Lodge] some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum . . . Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. . . . You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots.

This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the [revolutionary] Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce. In the path that we are laying out for our brethren there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by clearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. You want to revolutionize Italy; look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon; let the clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares [nets] like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.

It now remains for us to examine how successful this design has been. The Enlightenment, My Friend, Is “Blowin’ in the Wind” Throughout the 19th century, society had become increasingly permeated with the liberal principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, to the great detriment of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic State. The supposedly “kinder and gentler” notions of religious pluralism, religious indifferentism, a democracy which believes all authority comes from the people, false notions of liberty, separation of Church and State, interfaith gatherings and other novelties were gripping the minds of post-Enlightenment Europe, infecting statesmen and churchmen alike. The Popes of the 19th century and early 20th century waged war against these dangerous trends in full battle dress. With clearsighted presence of mind rooted in an uncompromised certitude of Faith, these Popes were not taken in. They knew that evil principles, no matter how honorable they may appear, cannot bear good fruit, and these were evil principles at their worst, since they were rooted not only in heresy, but in apostasy. Like commanding generals who recognize the duty to hold their ground at all cost, these Popes aimed powerful cannons at the errors of the modern world and fired incessantly. The Encyclicals were their cannonballs, and they never missed their target. The most devastating blast came in the form of Pope Pius IX’s monumental 1864 Syllabus of Errors, and when the smoke cleared, all involved in the battle were in no doubt as to who was on what side. The lines of demarcation had clearly been drawn. In this great Syllabus, Pius IX condemned the principal errors of the modern world, not because they were modern, but because these new ideas were rooted in pantheistic naturalism and were therefore incompatible with Catholic doctrine, as well as being destructive to society. The teachings in the Syllabus were counter-Liberalism, and the principles of Liberalism were counter-Syllabus. This was unquestionably recognized by all parties. Father Denis Fahey referred to this showdown as Pius IX vs. the Pantheistic Deification of Man. Speaking for the other side, the French Freemason Ferdinand Buisson likewise declared, “A school cannot remain neutral between the Syllabus and the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man.’”

“Liberal Catholics”
Yet the 19th century saw a new breed of Catholic who utopianly sought a compromise between the two. These men looked for what they believed to be “good” in the principles of 1789 and tried to introduce them into the Church. Many clergymen, infected by the spirit of the age, were caught into this net that had been “cast into the sacristies and into the seminaries.” They came to be known as “Liberal Catholics.” Pope Pius IX remarked that they were the worst enemies of the Church. Despite this, their numbers increased. Pope St. Pius X and Modernism This crisis peaked around the beginning of the 20th century when the Liberalism of 1789 that had been “blowin’ in the wind” swirled into the tornado of Modernism. Fr. Vincent Miceli identified this heresy as such by describing Modernism’s “trinity of parents.” He wrote:
1) Its religious ancestor is the Protestant Reformation;
2) Its philosophical parent is the Enlightenment;
3) Its political pedigree comes from the French Revolution.

Pope St. Pius X, who ascended to the papal chair in 1903, recognized Modernism as a most deadly plague that must be arrested. He wrote that the most important obligation of the Pope is to insure the purity and integrity of Catholic doctrine, and he further stated that if he did nothing, then he would have failed in his essential duty. St. Pius X waged a war on Modernism, issued an Encyclical (Pascendi) and a Syllabus (Lamentabili) against it, instituted the Anti-Modernist Oath to be sworn by all priests and theology teachers, purged the seminaries and universities of Modernists and excommunicated the stubborn and unrepentant. St. Pius X effectively halted the spread of Modernism in his day. It is reported, however, that when he was congratulated for having eradicated this grave error, St. Pius X immediately responded that despite all his efforts, he had not succeeded in killing this beast, but had only driven it underground. He warned that if Church leaders were not vigilant, it would return in the future more virulent than ever.

Curia on the Alert
A little-known drama that unfolded during the reign of Pope Pius XI demonstrates that the underground current of Modernist thought was alive and well in the immediate post-Pius X period. Father Raymond Dulac relates that at the secret consistory of May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI questioned the thirty Cardinals of the Curia on the timeliness of summoning an ecumenical council. In attendance were such illustrious prelates as Cardinals Merry del Val, De Lai, Gasparri, Boggiani and Billot. The Cardinals advised against it. Cardinal Billot warned, “The existence of profound differences in the midst of the episcopacy itself cannot be concealed . . . [They] run the risk of giving place to discussions that will be prolonged indefinitely.” Boggiani recalled the Modernist theories from which, he said, a part of the clergy and of the bishops were not exempt. “This mentality can incline certain Fathers to present motions, to introduce methods incompatible with Catholic traditions.”

Billot was even more precise. He expressed his fear of seeing the council maneuvered” by “the worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists, who are already getting ready, as certain indications show, to bring forth the revolution in the Church, a new 1789.” In discouraging the idea of a council for such reasons, these Cardinals showed themselves more apt at recognizing the “signs of the times” than all the post-Vatican II theologians combined. Yet their caution may have been rooted in something deeper. They may also have been haunted by the writings of the infamous illuminé, the excommunicated Canon Roca (1830-1893), who preached revolution and Church “reform” and who predicted a subversion of the Church that would be brought about by a council. Canon Roca’s Revolutionary Ravings In his book Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Bishop Graber refers to Canon Roca’s prediction of a new, enlightened Church which would be influenced by “the socialism of Jesus and the Apostles.” In the mid-19th century, Roca had predicted: “The new church, which might not be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original form of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and canonical jurisdiction from Rome.” Bishop Graber, commenting on this prediction, remarked, “A few years ago this was still inconceivable to us, but today . . .?”

Canon Roca also predicted a liturgical “reform.” With reference to the future liturgy, he believed “that the divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council, which will restore to it the venerable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.” He foretold that through this council will come “a perfect accord between the ideals of modern civilization and the ideal of Christ and His Gospel. This will be the consecration of the New Social Order and the solemn baptism of modern civilization.” Roca also spoke of the future of the Papacy. He wrote, “There is a sacrifice in the offing which represents a solemn act of expiation . . . The Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge. The papal caesar is a host [victim] crowned for the sacrifice.” Roca enthusiastically predicted a “new religion,” “new dogma,” “new ritual,” “new priesthood.” “He called the new priests ‘progressists’ [sic]; he speaks of the ‘suppression’ of the soutane [cassock] and the ‘marriage of priests.’” Chilling echos of Roca and the Alta Vendita are to be found in the words of the Rosicrucian Dr. Rudolph Steiner, who declared in 1910, “We need a council and a Pope to proclaim it.” The Great Council that Never Was Around 1948, Pope Pius XII, at the request of the staunchly orthodox Cardinal Ruffini, considered calling a general council and even spent a few years making the necessary preparations. There is evidence that progressive elements in Rome eventually dissuaded Pius XII from bringing it to realization since this council showed definite signs of being in sync with Humani Generis. Like this great 1950 encyclical, the new council would combat “false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.” Tragically, Pope Pius XII became convinced that he was too advanced in years to shoulder this momentous task, and he resigned himself to the idea that “this will be for my successor.”

Roncalli to “Consecrate Ecumenism”
Throughout the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), the Holy Office under the able leadership of Cardinal Ottaviani maintained a safe Catholic landscape by keeping the wild horses of Modernism firmly corralled. Many of today’s Modernist theologians disdainfully recount how they and their friends had been “muzzled” during this period. Yet even Ottaviani could not prevent what was to happen in 1958. A new type of Pope “whom the progressives believed to favor their cause” would ascend to the pontifical chair and would force a reluctant Ottaviani to remove the latch, open the corral and brace himself for the stampede. However, such a state of affairs was not unforeseen. At the news of the death of Pius XII, the old Dom Lambert Beauduin, a friend of Cardinal Roncalli (the future John XXIII), confided to Father Louis Bouyer: “If they elect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.” And so it happened: Cardinal Roncalli was elected and called a council which “consecrated” ecumenism. The “revolution in tiara and cope” was underway.

Pope John’s Revolution
It is well known and superbly documented that a clique of liberal theologians (periti) and bishops hijacked Vatican Council II (1962-1965) with an agenda to remake the Church into their own image through the implementation of a “new theology.” Critics and defenders of Vatican II are in agreement on this point. In his book Vatican II Revisited, Bishop Aloysius J. Wycislo (a rhapsodic advocate of the Vatican II revolution) declares with enthusiasm that “theologians and biblical scholars who had been ‘under a cloud’ for years surfaced as periti [theological experts advising the bishops at the Council], and their post-Vatican II books and commentaries became popular reading.” He notes that “Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis [1950] had . . . a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians” and explains that “During the early preparation of the Council, those theologians (mainly French, with some Germans) whose activities had been restricted by Pope Pius XII, were still under a cloud. Pope John quietly lifted the ban affecting some of the most influential ones. Yet a number remained suspect to the officials of the Holy Office.” Bishop Wycislo sings the praises of triumphant progressives such as Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum, who had been considered suspect before the Council, but who are now the leading lights of post-Vatican II theology. In effect, those whom Pope Pius XII considered unfit to be walking the streets of Catholicism were now in control of the town. And as if to crown their achievements, the Oath against Modernism was quietly suppressed shortly after the close of the Council.

St. Pius X had predicted correctly. Lack of vigilance in authority had allowed Modernism to return with a vengeance. “Marching under a New Banner” There were countless battles at Vatican II between the International Group of Fathers, who fought to maintain Tradition, and the progressive Rhine group. Tragically, in the end, it was the latter, the Liberal and Modernist element that prevailed. It was obvious, to anyone who had eyes to see, that the Council opened the door to many ideas that had formerly been anathema to Church teaching, but which are in step with modernist thought. This did not happen by accident, but by design. The progressives at Vatican II avoided condemnations of Modernist errors. They also deliberately planted ambiguities in the Council’s texts which they intended to exploit after the Council. These ambiguities have been utilized to promote an ecumenism that had been condemned by Pope Pius XI, a religious liberty that had been condemned by the 19th and early 20th-century Popes (especially Pope Pius IX), a new liturgy along the lines of ecumenism that Archbishop Bugnini called “a major conquest of the Catholic Church,” a collegiality that strikes at the heart of the papal primacy and a “new attitude toward the world”— especially in one of the most radical of all the Council documents, Gaudium et Spes. As the authors of The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita had hoped, the notions of Liberal culture had finally won adherence among major players in the Catholic hierarchy and were thus spread throughout the entire Church. The result has been an unprecedented crisis of Faith, which continues to worsen. At the same time, countless highly placed Churchmen, obviously inebriated by the “spirit of Vatican II,” continuously praise those post-Conciliar reforms that have brought this calamity to pass.


Taken from The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita by TAN Books & Publishers, Inc.

Anyone ever heard of this book? I haven't..

J.M.J.
Mark

Click to expand...

Asimis said:

Nah, go by the dogmas themselves:

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. (De fide.)



See? Vatican II did not fit this criteria neither the fact that the Bishops and Pope hold a council. They need to propose a teaching as one to be held by all faithful. Like I said before, VII did not stablish any Canons, didn't condemn anything as anathema neither did it declare any dogmatic teaching.

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

As you probably can guess, this stuff is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head. I do have a question though... What does Pope John Paul think of this book or the points made in this book? I have never heard of this book... Although, there are many books that I have not heard of.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

Click to expand...