Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 590366 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#479289 Sep 30, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth
Peace
I very much believe this....
The question is, "Who are Israel?"
If we are grafted onto Israel as Christians, and much of the Jews have been removed as deadwood and burned, then as grafted branches, we too are in the wilderness and find REST in Jesus....
What we need to do is remain watchful and become as Jesus. Then we will not be removed and burned as deadwood or unproductive branches.
Keep your mind and heart on Jesus!
Peace
I could not agree more ..:)
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#479290 Sep 30, 2013
But some "interpretations" of the pope's words are, damnably, much farther afield. Consider the Independent's headline: Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven." Not surprisingly, this paper also suddenly forgot how to use the hyperlink feature in its reportage (what the pope actually wrote).

But Francis never said "You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven."

In fact, he never used the word "Heaven" in what was a 2688-word letter even once.(ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!)

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/pope_f...
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479291 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
You choose to flood the board with spam. Those who prefer the more scholarly approach will actually post a link and allow the readers to see the issue debated. Never took a debate class with all those advanced degrees did you?
Yes your right I choose to post a 3000 word article in 2-3 or three posts in response to an unsubstantiated claim from a RCC zealot.

If you think that's a Flood or spam well you are just plain dumb.
Your way which you call scholarly PUFF PUFF goes your chest is the way of the coward who can't refute the evidence and then tries to play all superior.

All I get is a big prideful post like the one above about how superior you are.

BUT AGAIN IT DOES NOT GO UNNOTICED by those who I am posting to through the likes of you that you can not make a cognitive logical historical biblical defense to your assertions.

NOPE once again the best you mount in a defense is a character assassination .

Pathetic to say the least
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#479292 Sep 30, 2013
More truth in spite of bearers of false witness who are spreading the lie that the Pope is "making changes":

As for doctrine, the Church isn't some journalist with hormone-imbalance-induced mood swings. Defined doctrine (dogma) cannot change, and new doctrines won't be forged with reporters. What a pope says in an interview doesn't change doctrine any more than what a president says in an interview changes American law.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/pope_f...

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#479293 Sep 30, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I could not agree more ..:)
CORRECTING MYSELF ..

AGREE WE,ARE GRAFTED .

God's,covenant with ISRAEl...IS sacred ..

I believe,Faithful Jews,worshipping Yahweh God ...
Are,part of His,Salvation plan ..how,I can only guess,.
I don't believe them lost

Those,murdered for being God's,Chosen ..IMO...If they were faithful..even in torture or concentration camps,..are,martyrs
To THE,ONE GOD ..of Abraham ..

God is the final judge ...

They are not deadwood..
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479294 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
All dogmas are over 70%. lol.
From your pet "expert":
William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his 1995 book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called "baptismal regeneration" :
"The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (Webster, page 95-96)
What a beaut of an example of your RCC delusions.

Baptism as the RCC practices has never had universal consent.

Immersion, sprinkling, infant adult baptism just for starters, who can baptize who can't NOT EVEN close to universal unbroken tradition on baptism and because you have never read early church fathers works from cover to cover and only can regurgitate RCC propaganda you once again show you are dumb.

But let the Bible speak for itself Who so ever can confess Jesus as their Lord and savior should be Baptized.

I have been to many RCC water sprinklings of infants

NOT ONE CONFESSED WITH Their lips Jesus was their LORD and SAVIOR.

No infant baptism was instituted by the RCC so to make all in the land subjects of the crown so they had to pay taxes when older as there was no separation of Church and State until well you KNOW

THE REFORMATION.
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479295 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
Five Historical Realities That are Against an Early Papacy
Jason Engwer
According to the First Vatican Council and other authoritative Catholic sources, a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed and been "ever understood" by the Christian church since the time of Peter ( http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/jasonte1.htm ).
However, the following five facts of history make this claim of the Catholic Church untenable:
1. There are no explicit references to a papacy in the earliest centuries of Christianity. Catholic apologists often suggest that a papacy is alluded to in Matthew 16, John 21, First Clement, Against Heresies, and other early documents, but all of these documents can reasonably be interpreted in non-papal ways. There are explicit references to the church offices of bishop and deacon, as well as doctrines such as Christ's deity, the Trinity, and the eucharist, but there aren't any explicit references to a papacy.
2. Many of the words and actions of the earliest Christians contradict the concept of a papacy. The disciples repeatedly argued about who was the greatest among them, even after the words of Matthew 16:18-19 were spoken (Luke 22:24). The disciples don't seem to have had any concept of Peter having been established as their ruler. Paul wrote about apostles (plural), not a Pope, being the highest order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also wrote that, in terms of apostolic authority, he was in no way inferior to any other apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11). Many events in early post-apostolic church history, such as Polycarp's disagreements with the Roman bishop Anicetus and Cyprian's disagreements with the Roman bishop Stephen, also contradict the concept of a papacy ( http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm ).
3. The earliest non-Christian sources who commented on Christianity said nothing about a papacy. Though Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, and other early non-Christian sources wrote about the eucharist, Christ's deity, and other Christian doctrines, they didn't say anything about a papacy. If one man was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth, the "Vicar of Christ" and "Bishop of bishops", he would have been an ideal object of criticism. None of the earliest non-Christian sources seem to have any concept of a papacy, though.
cont...
Jason Engwer, the James White protoge/lackey. lol.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num18.htm

http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Th...

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/debate13.h...
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#479296 Sep 30, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Luke 1: 47 Mary calls God her savior. The Church won't teach it any other way. Because of her role, her saving was all the more important. It just came in a different way than the rest of us, given her unique sole in Gods plan.
So the Bible tells us of an "all the more important" salvation? Where might I find the Biblical verse that describes the salvation of Mary as an "all the more important" method? By the way, what is an
"all the more important" method of salvation and how does it differ from the salvation of any other human being?
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#479297 Sep 30, 2013
Mary was a human being, correct? This requires a yes or no answer.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479298 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fact that Paul does not use the precise word ‘sufficient’ in the text just quoted in no way invalidates our statement. The sufficiency of Scripture, and therefore ‘sola scriptura’, is implicit in what he says and in the rest of biblical testimony."
That's what this debate is about.
The links I provided (and many more out there) demolish Webster.
So to all you seekers who have not left your brain at the door like Ant has

The following are some of the words which tell us how God would have us regard his Word:
pure—perfect—sure—truth—eterna l—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17).
It is impossible to find a more convincing argument for the sufficiency of Scripture than these descriptions. And no such language is ever used about tradition in the Scriptures. Nowhere does it receive such commendation. We are told in explicit terms that Scripture is inspired, but never is that said of tradition. On the contrary, when the New Testament speaks of tradition it does so in words of warning (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18; Gal. 1:14). When we look at the overall teaching of Scripture about itself and tradition, it is surely clear that it teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

So the best Anthony can do with all this is say his link destroys it, not what Webster says no he thinks it destorys WHAT God says about his word which he never says about tradition in fact he refers to it with codemantion.

You see it is irrelvant what Webster or I think, we both stand on God's word and what it says about itself.

We are only posting God's thoughts on his Scripture and what God thinks about Tradition and well Its Contray to what the RCC asserts.

Its that simple Anthony knows that but like a pharisee who knew he was wrong when Saying Jesus healed with demonic spirit his pride won't let him admit he is wrong, placed his faith in a man made institution so he attacks the messenger and demonizes them just like a good like disciple of the Pharisaical sect.

Truth Matters its in the Bible not RCC man made tradition
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479299 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
I post from many vetted sources, regardless of what you say they stand the test that matters, they pass the biblical test.
The fact that you post another character assassination is the reason I don't address your links, where to begin with them so much nonsense.
But that is your tactic miss direction, the facts post in this ignored by you, and you instead use distractions and change the subjects that were originally being addressed. YOU are so disingenuous, and dishonest to the subject matter at hand.
Anyone like yourself who believes that history proves the RCC claims such as unbroken line of Popes has drank the koolaid and then some.
Your credibility as RC with history is like a fox explaining how he has such great relations and friendships with the chickens.
Again the RCC redefines words to suit their needs they never let chapter and writings of Ancient texts to define the words they use in the writings.
The RCC yourself included, before ever getting to ancient texts have all been brain washed conditioned from Sunday School to conformation to believe the meaning you use for a word toady is the same as ancient word translated in to English. You pour a meaning into a word from 1000+ years out to with no regard to the context of the word in its original language and time.
BTW I do not have advance degrees, I am simply blessed with a good education, a good job, and blessed with the ability to travel since the late 80's all over the world. It is all God and I thank him.
It is simply the Gospel and that is why someone with Pride like the RCC can except it. The Word even predicts the wise won't handle it.
Jesus says its Finished and the RCC says it isn't, its not rocket science it is a matter of submission and bowing ones knee to Lord Jesus and saying NO to Man made institutions and fabricated traditions.
Its not complicated, God's will be done not your fake Popes or your fake institutions.
If you ever receive the Spirit of Truth you will know what I am writing about.
God Bless
Um, let's stick with the subject at hand and avoid going off on non-related tangents, k? There are no character assassinations in the links I provided. They are a point-by-point refutations of Webster's argument re; sola scriptura. His amatuerish research is laid bare for all to see. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you.
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479300 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes your right I choose to post a 3000 word article in 2-3 or three posts in response to an unsubstantiated claim from a RCC zealot.
If you think that's a Flood or spam well you are just plain dumb.
Your way which you call scholarly PUFF PUFF goes your chest is the way of the coward who can't refute the evidence and then tries to play all superior.
All I get is a big prideful post like the one above about how superior you are.
BUT AGAIN IT DOES NOT GO UNNOTICED by those who I am posting to through the likes of you that you can not make a cognitive logical historical biblical defense to your assertions.
NOPE once again the best you mount in a defense is a character assassination .
Pathetic to say the least
I am more than happy to engage in a charitable debate. When you post page after page of Webster's opinions with no link and I respond with a link which covers a point-by-point refutation you accuse me of acting prideful and acting superior.

If you had one ounce of sincerity you would read my links and offer a counter point instead of ignoring them and launching an attack on my character.
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479301 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
What a beaut of an example of your RCC delusions.
Baptism as the RCC practices has never had universal consent.
Immersion, sprinkling, infant adult baptism just for starters, who can baptize who can't NOT EVEN close to universal unbroken tradition on baptism and because you have never read early church fathers works from cover to cover and only can regurgitate RCC propaganda you once again show you are dumb.
But let the Bible speak for itself Who so ever can confess Jesus as their Lord and savior should be Baptized.
I have been to many RCC water sprinklings of infants
NOT ONE CONFESSED WITH Their lips Jesus was their LORD and SAVIOR.
No infant baptism was instituted by the RCC so to make all in the land subjects of the crown so they had to pay taxes when older as there was no separation of Church and State until well you KNOW
THE REFORMATION.
This is a direct quote from YOUR OWN EXPERT William Webster;

"The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (Webster, page 95-96)

From his book "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History"

Tell him, don't tell me.
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479302 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
So to all you seekers who have not left your brain at the door like Ant has
The following are some of the words which tell us how God would have us regard his Word:
pure—perfect—sure—truth—eterna l—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17).
It is impossible to find a more convincing argument for the sufficiency of Scripture than these descriptions. And no such language is ever used about tradition in the Scriptures. Nowhere does it receive such commendation. We are told in explicit terms that Scripture is inspired, but never is that said of tradition. On the contrary, when the New Testament speaks of tradition it does so in words of warning (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18; Gal. 1:14). When we look at the overall teaching of Scripture about itself and tradition, it is surely clear that it teaches that Scripture is sufficient.
So the best Anthony can do with all this is say his link destroys it, not what Webster says no he thinks it destorys WHAT God says about his word which he never says about tradition in fact he refers to it with codemantion.
You see it is irrelvant what Webster or I think, we both stand on God's word and what it says about itself.
We are only posting God's thoughts on his Scripture and what God thinks about Tradition and well Its Contray to what the RCC asserts.
Its that simple Anthony knows that but like a pharisee who knew he was wrong when Saying Jesus healed with demonic spirit his pride won't let him admit he is wrong, placed his faith in a man made institution so he attacks the messenger and demonizes them just like a good like disciple of the Pharisaical sect.
Truth Matters its in the Bible not RCC man made tradition
"You see it is irrelvant what Webster or I think, we both stand on God's word and what it says about itself."

Then why post page after page of his spam?

And I suppose this goes back to my original issue with you. There is no authority within protestantism because of sola scriptura. Many protestant sola scriptura sects, in fact the majority of protestantism, disagress with what you and Webster say about God's word regarding baptism. How can that be?
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479303 Sep 30, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Mary was a human being, correct? This requires a yes or no answer.
Yes. She needed a Saviour like all other human beings.

Your turn; Do human beings who are without sin need a Saviour?
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#479304 Sep 30, 2013
We must learn to distinguish between tradition(s) and command(s).

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#479305 Sep 30, 2013
who="Anthony MN"
"The fact that Paul does not use the precise word ‘sufficient’ in the text just quoted in no way invalidates our statement. The sufficiency of Scripture, and therefore ‘sola scriptura’, is implicit in what he says and in the rest of biblical testimony."
That's what this debate is about.
The links I provided (and many more out there) demolish Webster.

First the CC is claimed to be smarter than the Bible. Are you now saying that the CC/you are smarter than Websters...AND the countless REALLY smart people who depend on the Bible and Websters ???

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#479306 Sep 30, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
When are you going to post some teachings by Jesus that confirms what "Paul" states?
Believe what you will...

THE account of SAUL OF TARSUS being APPREHENDED,by JESUS HIMSELF,=>,...

ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS and sent...

Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Act 9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Act 9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

AND WHAT JESUS SAID TO ANANIAS concerning Paul ...IS ENOUGH TO

AUTHENTICATED PAUL AS BEING INSPIRED OF THE HOLY GHOST..THUS SPEAKING GOD'S WORD.

Act 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

Act 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Act 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Act 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
Act 9:14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Act 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

Act 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

YOU CAN ATTEMPT TO DENY THE CALL OF GOD ON PAUL'S LIFE ( AND CALL JESUS a liar IF YOU OPT TO)

BUT I ACCEPT THE WORD OF THE APOSTLE PAUL AS THE WORD OF GOD...

THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING THROUGH HIM AS HE DID JESUS.

JESUS SAID WHAT HE FATHER SAID...AND SO DID PAUL AND THE REST OF THE

..APOSTLES...
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#479307 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not have advance degrees, I am simply blessed with a good education,
You are also "heretically blessed with an anti-catholic (Pro-Protestant) education that rely's completely upon distorting, skillfully manipulating and twisting of 2000 years of the Truth of TRUE Church History, the TRUE interpretation of the bible, that was finalized in 382, 393, and 397AD by the Early Church Fathers. You have resorted to create and invent "your own" fictitious Protestant Church History book of myths and legends. Unfortunately for you Concerning, is that YOU YOURSELF are the only one "buying into" created from your (personal opinionated) editorialized bible only "imaginations" that have absolutely "no basis of ANY biblical or historical truth to back up ANYTHING that you have "conjured up. It is "clearly obvious" that even your other bible only (self-interpreters) don't believe you either!!!! I/we as Catholic will continue (as have our other "billions" of Brothers and Sister Catholics for over 2000 years have done) to follow, believe and adhere to the TRUE Biblical and historical TEACHINGS and the TRUE GOSPEL of Jesus Christ, handed down by HIS Apostles in Acts 2, worshipping in the TRUTH of Jesus Christ and HIS One (and only one) TRUE Apostolic Catholic Church.----You my friend, can do want you want! Your not fooling ANYONE but yourself, even though you many think so!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#479308 Sep 30, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholic Church "doctrine,or dogma with regards to faith and morals HAS NOT CHANGED in over 2000 years, nor will EVER CHANGE, while your 42,000 bible only (self-interpreting) "contradicting" denominations continue to fracture, splinter and divide more and more each day.(42,000 today, 42,100 tomorrow, 42,200 the next day) with no end IN SIGHT to the hodge-podge of inconsistencies.(i.e abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia, embroyonic stem cell research, homosexual ministers)....... YOU CAN HAVE IT!!! IT IS "ALL" YOURS!!!!..... I/we as Catholics, will continue to remain with the authenticated, proven and verifable TRUTH of the TRUE GOSPEL and the TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Bible that has been substantiated and grounded in the TRUE FAITH and SALVATION of Jesus Christ for over 2000 years, manifested ONLY in HIS One TRUE Apostolic Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) We, as Catholics will continue to worship God in----HIS WAY. You bible only "42,000 editorialists" can (argue, debate and fight with each other) worshipping God, EACH--- IN YOUR OWN WAY!!!
Then to catlicks faith and morals have nothing to do with purgatory...celibacy...sin..be cause they have changed that teaching...

Peter was married....supposedly your first pope...that has been changed to celibacy..

The Bible teaches Mary was a sinner..the catlicks have changed that to her being sinless..

Christ built His church...Christianity...catlic ks have changed that to be the RCC...

Have about 100 more if you want to see them...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min It aint necessari... 839,220
sexy girl want to Skype fun Skype: dilinazi20 1 hr morgo 7
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Tony17 100,016
Pavani Group Reviews 2 hr Namrata 4
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 hr dollarsbill 4,477
St Clair County IL DCFS (Sep '14) 3 hr wronglyaccused3 2
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 3 hr quilterqueen 1,425
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr who 271,353
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 19 hr swedenforever 176,949
More from around the web