Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 599754 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.

Clay

United States

#424795 Feb 26, 2013
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Clay, what you don't seem to understand is that the scriptures were 'God breathed', and were around well before the formation of the RCC. All of the scriptures were completed and being circulated amonst the churches. The catholic church was simply instrumental in putting these scriptures into a BOOK. Nothing more.
True that.
Those scriptures in the New Testament were already written. But not until 30-50 yrs after Jesus died.
As I pointed out, many writings were held dear to the early Church. Including that of the Apostolic fathers. Why wouldn't they be? Its a first hand account of what the Apostles actually taught, by people who walked with them. There can be no dispute.
Of course, you and many found a loophole by simply ignoring the letters of the Disciples of the Apostles. You created an idea that if it ain't in the New Testament,'we don't care'.
Well, thats irresponsible as a serious Christian.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#424796 Feb 26, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
hey new ager, may i jump in?
i know we've been down this road before, but i'm still puzzled as to where you think you got your doctrine, if not handed down from "men"???
"there is nothing new under the sun" Solomon
And I'll state it again, since you refuse to accept my answer....

I don't accept the belief of men as my belief.

I may utilize what men have written, as they are the only ones trying to define "God". But this is only a utilization of those texts. It doesn't define my belief.

My belief in anything is based upon information I've come across, compare it to others, and weed out the bullshite that had overshadowed the "truth".

Just because I don't follow a prescribed edict, it doesn't mean I am wrong, but it does mean that I've chosen (Self) to place my belief in a spiritual entity that has not been proven to exist.

In other words, my faith is of my own making, just like yours.

No religion needed.

What are you afraid of?
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#424797 Feb 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't provide it - because you never stated your answer.
Stop trying to play me. If you are so sure you answered, then go back and review your posts and post it.
All you have ever shown in your posts is your dishonesty and diversion from answering.
Want to know why?
Because it proves your religion is false and bullshite.
Something that requires honesty to admit. In which you haven't.
Why don't you believe Jesus?
Why do you think "Paul" was more enlightened than Jesus?
You are asking a strange and ignorant question in the attempt of creating a strawman. Its like asking a good man if he still beats his wife.

It is up to you to show me where I have said I think Paul is more enlightened than Jesus. You are correct on one point - you can't provide it.

Now, go ahead and respond by asking the same question again....(insane?)
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#424798 Feb 26, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you possibly demand that every little 'i' and 't' about Catholicism be highlighted in the Bible, when Catholicism itself produced the Christian Bible 400 yrs after Christ? Bishops of the Catholic Church with the Pope (Damaseus) signed off on the New Testament Canon, and you demand that the word 'Pope' should be in the Bible. Seems very odd.
I read somewhere that the writings of the Apostolic fathers - particularly Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch - almost made it into the New Testament. But it was decided by the CC to include only the writings from the Apostles themselves and not their students.
Funny, but none of you guys would have ever come into existence had this been done.
Martin Luther fought to eliminate the Books of Revelation and James from the Bible. Can you imagine all of the cults that would have never come to be, had Revelation not been available to them?
Have you ever thought that perhaps, no matter what man did, the Holy Spirit preserved God's Word for us so people like you and me could know God's Will for our lives and be able to recognize the false teachers His Word warns us about?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#424799 Feb 26, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus taught that all of the authority in Heaven has been given to Him. He in turn, gave Peter the keys. "whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven". He gave the Apostles real authority. They chose Paul as one of their Apostles. Peter endorsed the writings of Paul - telling people to listen to "Our dear brother Paul".
-if Jesus Christ gave Peter real authority.. Matthew 16:18
-and Peter endorsed the writings of Paul..2Peter 3:15-16
Then it seems to me you're guilty of ignoring what Jesus Christ said by way of Peter. You're saying the Apostles had no authority to make Paul a brother and Peters opinion of Paul's Epistles does not matter to you....even thou Peter clearly was given the authority by Jesus Christ Himself to make those declarations about Paul.
Where are you coming up with this new version of me?

Please provide a citation, or stop misleading others and making up things about me. You so-called "Christians", when called out directly, I think the only way you guys can handle it, is divert it abck to the non-Christian partisan who pointed out the error in your ways.

"Then it seems to me you're guilty of ignoring what Jesus Christ said by way of Peter."
- Wrong - I ignore that "Paul" and Peter for that matter, is more enlightened than Jesus. I accept all of what Jesus taught as critical for learning, not just what you do.

Fail #1

"You're saying the Apostles had no authority to make Paul a brother and Peters opinion of Paul's Epistles does not matter to you."
- No I am not. Please post these exact words, as stated by me.
- You won't because you can't, because you made it up.
- I have stated that you regard "Paul's Epistles" over what Jesus said. I don't.

Fail #2

"even thou Peter clearly was given the authority by Jesus Christ Himself to make those declarations about Paul."
- "Get behind me Satan" is what Jesus said. If you think this is giving him "the keys" - you are wrong. The "keys" is the understanding and knowing of your Self, in order to "enter the kingdom of God."

Fail #3

Are you going to answer my question(s), or just continue to divert from them.

"Honesty is the best policy." - Aesop
Clay

United States

#424800 Feb 26, 2013
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Clay, what you don't seem to understand is that the scriptures were 'God breathed', and were around well before the formation of the RCC. All of the scriptures were completed and being circulated amonst the churches. The catholic church was simply instrumental in putting these scriptures into a BOOK. Nothing more.
'simply instrumental' is a soft way to put it.

'real God given authority' is the correct way..

You say all scriptures were 'God breathed'.
Who's scriptures? The Bible has 72 separate books. Are all of them God breathed according to you? Well, we know 7 of those books are not.
Separate Jewish sects had different books that they considered scripture. The Quaman Jews of the infamous Dead Sea Scrolls discovery had the Book of Tobit in their possession. Is the Book of Tobit 'scripture' to you?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#424801 Feb 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
I can't provide it - because you never stated your answer.
Stop trying to play me. If you are so sure you answered, then go back and review your posts and post it.
All you have ever shown in your posts is your dishonesty and diversion from answering.
Want to know why?
Because it proves your religion is false and bullshite.
Something that requires honesty to admit. In which you haven't.
Why don't you believe Jesus?
Why do you think "Paul" was more enlightened than Jesus?
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are asking a strange and ignorant question in the attempt of creating a strawman. Its like asking a good man if he still beats his wife.
"strange and ignorant question"?
- I think not. with you not answering the question(s), just goes to show your lack of honesty in your belief. You trully would rather believe other men thant to state an opinion that goes against your religion.

No strawman at all. FACT! Live with it coward.
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
It is up to you to show me where I have said I think Paul is more enlightened than Jesus. You are correct on one point - you can't provide it.
Like I've stated - you haven't, didn't, and refuse to. How can I post something you are afraid to post?

Your refusal to do so in "so many ways", is the only strawman action being taken.
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, go ahead and respond by asking the same question again....(insane?)
Okay, I will.

"Why do you think "Paul" is more enlightened than Jesus?"

I'll add a couple of more to help you realize the truths you refuse to acknowledge.

- Why do you think a 3rd generation disciple over many of the original 13 Apostles?
- Why do you only believe in less than 6 of the original 13 Apostles?

Thanks for reading my posts!

Since: Nov 08

usa

#424802 Feb 26, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
EXACTLY!! We as Catholics listen to Jesus, His own SPOKEN, STATED and EXPRESSED WORDS---"In the Gospels)--every day at Daily Mass..... We, not only listen to Him but we follow and adhere to His Words, His teachings and His "explicit directions" (every day) IN THE GOSPELS and the TRUTH that has been proclaimed, over and over again, for 2000 years of Church History in:
Matthew 16:13-21--re: His(only)One True (Universal-Catholic Church
John 6:47-59 --re: the Eucharist (Jesus' TRUE BODY AND BLOOD
Mark 4:1-re: baptism for the remission of sin-
Mark 16:16---re: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
John 1:31-re:I baptize with water, but HE will baptize with the HS
Why don't YOU, Confrinting, instead of just quoting "bible verses"----believe, follow, "act" on, and live the SPOKEN words of Jesus (each day)!!!
i see your still playing pope,"we as catholics?" you speak for every catholic on here? do all catholics here and around the world have a say as to who the next pope should be? no you don't,jesus doesn't even have a say,and it's suppose to be his church,and the main choice of the vatican council is from boston, father o'malley and he doesn't want the job.jesus is not going to him and speaking "you father o'malley, i hear by declare you the new leader of my church",it's nt decided that way, a group of ordinary men get together and decide who is best at coverups and deciefulness to protect the church from the outside world from finding out the truth about the evil the church has and will continue to do in thr future.they like o'malley because he did a great job here in boston in smoothing things over about the abuse cases,and he is a man of his word,he will not lie for the sake of the church,so it's surprising they are picking an honest man for the job.he would bring sweeping changes to the church that would shock the vatican council into realizing they made a mistake by picking him,he would make all things public,open the doors to the church for the world to see,and that will not sit well the the higherarchy in vatican city.i have read many interviews and watched him on tv interviews,he takes his cinvictions very seriously,and all this corruption going on in the church would come to an end.this why he is turning down the position,because there would be great conflict in the church,no more criminal activities would be allowed,no more cover-ups,you would have a church that you could take a little pride in,but still there is one thing he nor anyone else can do and say and that is the C.C. is jesus' church,if it were jesus would be picking benny's replacement,not a group of men who most likely bought their positions within the church.
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#424803 Feb 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are you coming up with this new version of me?
Please provide a citation, or stop misleading others and making up things about me. You so-called "Christians", when called out directly, I think the only way you guys can handle it, is divert it abck to the non-Christian partisan who pointed out the error in your ways.
"Then it seems to me you're guilty of ignoring what Jesus Christ said by way of Peter."
- Wrong - I ignore that "Paul" and Peter for that matter, is more enlightened than Jesus. I accept all of what Jesus taught as critical for learning, not just what you do.
Fail #1
"You're saying the Apostles had no authority to make Paul a brother and Peters opinion of Paul's Epistles does not matter to you."
- No I am not. Please post these exact words, as stated by me.
- You won't because you can't, because you made it up.
- I have stated that you regard "Paul's Epistles" over what Jesus said. I don't.
Fail #2
"even thou Peter clearly was given the authority by Jesus Christ Himself to make those declarations about Paul."
- "Get behind me Satan" is what Jesus said. If you think this is giving him "the keys" - you are wrong. The "keys" is the understanding and knowing of your Self, in order to "enter the kingdom of God."
Fail #3
Are you going to answer my question(s), or just continue to divert from them.
"Honesty is the best policy." - Aesop
Frankly, New Age Spiritual Leader, your attitude and remarks remind me of someone I used to know that had short-man's disease and smoked dope.
Clay

United States

#424805 Feb 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are you coming up with this new version of me?
Please provide a citation, or stop misleading others and making up things about me. You so-called "Christians", when called out directly, I think the only way you guys can handle it, is divert it abck to the non-Christian partisan who pointed out the error in your ways.
"Then it seems to me you're guilty of ignoring what Jesus Christ said by way of Peter."
- Wrong - I ignore that "Paul" and Peter for that matter, is more enlightened than Jesus. I accept all of what Jesus taught as critical for learning, not just what you do.
Fail #1
"You're saying the Apostles had no authority to make Paul a brother and Peters opinion of Paul's Epistles does not matter to you."
- No I am not. Please post these exact words, as stated by me.
- You won't because you can't, because you made it up.
- I have stated that you regard "Paul's Epistles" over what Jesus said. I don't.
Fail #2
"even thou Peter clearly was given the authority by Jesus Christ Himself to make those declarations about Paul."
- "Get behind me Satan" is what Jesus said. If you think this is giving him "the keys" - you are wrong. The "keys" is the understanding and knowing of your Self, in order to "enter the kingdom of God."
Fail #3
Are you going to answer my question(s), or just continue to divert from them.
"Honesty is the best policy." - Aesop
You do not consider the Apostle Pauls writings to be valid. Right?
You consider the memories of Matthew and Mark to be more accurate scripturally then anything Paul had to say. Right?

Why do you think the Apostles were wrong to include Paul as a brother?

If I'm way off in presuming what you think, then correct me and I won't do it again.
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#424806 Feb 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
I can't provide it - because you never stated your answer.
Stop trying to play me. If you are so sure you answered, then go back and review your posts and post it.
All you have ever shown in your posts is your dishonesty and diversion from answering.
Want to know why?
Because it proves your religion is false and bullshite.
Something that requires honesty to admit. In which you haven't.
Why don't you believe Jesus?
Why do you think "Paul" was more enlightened than Jesus?
<quoted text>
"strange and ignorant question"?
- I think not. with you not answering the question(s), just goes to show your lack of honesty in your belief. You trully would rather believe other men thant to state an opinion that goes against your religion.
No strawman at all. FACT! Live with it coward.
<quoted text>
Like I've stated - you haven't, didn't, and refuse to. How can I post something you are afraid to post?
Your refusal to do so in "so many ways", is the only strawman action being taken.
<quoted text>
Okay, I will.
"Why do you think "Paul" is more enlightened than Jesus?"
I'll add a couple of more to help you realize the truths you refuse to acknowledge.
- Why do you think a 3rd generation disciple over many of the original 13 Apostles?
- Why do you only believe in less than 6 of the original 13 Apostles?
Thanks for reading my posts!
You forgot to ask if I still beat my wife.

So, let me get this straight - you say I'm dishonest in my belief because by believing the Bible is inspired I'm refusing to admit something you've attributed to me that I have never believed to be true in the first place.

And, supposedly, the fact that I am refusing to admit believing something I don't believe in the first place happens to be the only reason you cannot provide the evidence that the statement you attributed to me is true.

Respectfully, which planet are you from? If earth, what are you smoking?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#424807 Feb 26, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
From a Catholic who isn't afraid of his church's history and reality......
"The Vatican wasn't founded by Jesus, and the modern papacy is only a construct that came into being after the French Revolution."
"Popes weren't always elected by Cardinals. Lay people were involved. A lay person can technically become Pope."
Something few Catholics consider...
"There is a democratic tradition in the early church that has long been side-lined, and so much of the so-called tradition around the papacy as we know it is only a few hundred years old."
what's a "lay people"??? there's not even a hint of the concept in the entire new testament!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#424808 Feb 26, 2013
792
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you possibly demand that every little 'i' and 't' about Catholicism be highlighted in the Bible, when Catholicism itself produced the Christian Bible 400 yrs after Christ? Bishops of the Catholic Church with the Pope (Damaseus) signed off on the New Testament Canon, and you demand that the word 'Pope' should be in the Bible. Seems very odd.
I read somewhere that the writings of the Apostolic fathers - particularly Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch - almost made it into the New Testament. But it was decided by the CC to include only the writings from the Apostles themselves and not their students.
Funny, but none of you guys would have ever come into existence had this been done.
Martin Luther fought to eliminate the Books of Revelation and James from the Bible. Can you imagine all of the cults that would have never come to be, had Revelation not been available to them?
Horse puckette!!!!

The Catholic denomination was founded by the Emperor!!!! Some 300 years after Christ ascended into Heaven!!!! It is founded on paganism.....not Christianity...

Roman Catholicism
Founder: Emperor Constantine

The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood Pontifex Maximus a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#424809 Feb 26, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
what's a "lay people"??? there's not even a hint of the concept in the entire new testament!
Interesting question. My initial thought is the "knowing" we read about and also "yada" which is an intimate knowing in the Hebrew.

Perhaps its a child the Priest knows.
:)

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#424810 Feb 26, 2013
7th Day Catholic Rocks wrote:
<quoted text>Ok was I supose top have learned something new on top of what I already posted and believe ?
Or where you just amending to what I already posted ?
~~~

Just giving more strength from the word, in agreement to what you had written...

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#424811 Feb 26, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
what's a "lay people"??? there's not even a hint of the concept in the entire new testament!
___

LAY, n.[L. locus. See Lay, the verb. The words which signify place, are from verbs which express setting or laying. It is written also ley, and lea, but less properly.]

Pertaining to the laity or people, as distinct from the clergy; not clerical; as a lay person; a lay preacher; a lay brother.

Layman
LAY' MAN, n. la'man.[lay and man.]

1. A man who is not a clergyman; one of the laity or people, distinct from the clergy.
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#424812 Feb 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
I can't provide it - because you never stated your answer.
Stop trying to play me. If you are so sure you answered, then go back and review your posts and post it.
All you have ever shown in your posts is your dishonesty and diversion from answering.
Want to know why?
Because it proves your religion is false and bullshite.
Something that requires honesty to admit. In which you haven't.
Why don't you believe Jesus?
Why do you think "Paul" was more enlightened than Jesus?
<quoted text>
"strange and ignorant question"?
- I think not. with you not answering the question(s), just goes to show your lack of honesty in your belief. You trully would rather believe other men thant to state an opinion that goes against your religion.
No strawman at all. FACT! Live with it coward.
<quoted text>
Like I've stated - you haven't, didn't, and refuse to. How can I post something you are afraid to post?
Your refusal to do so in "so many ways", is the only strawman action being taken.
<quoted text>
Okay, I will.
"Why do you think "Paul" is more enlightened than Jesus?"
I'll add a couple of more to help you realize the truths you refuse to acknowledge.
- Why do you think a 3rd generation disciple over many of the original 13 Apostles?
- Why do you only believe in less than 6 of the original 13 Apostles?
Thanks for reading my posts!
I'll try another way:

Since you refuse to acknowledge my answer, that I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God that has been preserved for us through the Holy Spirit and therefore there are no contradictions, I will try to explain, once again, the absurdity of your loaded questions.

You are asking questions from a false or questionable presupposition that is loaded with that presumption. The innuendo you've presented in your question begins the discussion with a false premise which I've already tried to tell you is untrue and unsound.

You are slipping claims into your rhetoric without the burden of proving them. The ball is in your court to take responsibility for the unproven assertions and to prove why the books you're referring to are in fact, inspired writings.

If you refuse my answer that the Bible is a collection of inspired writings, none of which contradict the other, and none of which are more enlightened than the other, then you leave me no choice but to answer indirectly, without bifurcation, or implying a falsehood or a statement that I deny.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#424813 Feb 26, 2013
792
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you possibly demand that every little 'i' and 't' about Catholicism be highlighted in the Bible, when Catholicism itself produced the Christian Bible 400 yrs after Christ? Bishops of the Catholic Church with the Pope (Damaseus) signed off on the New Testament Canon, and you demand that the word 'Pope' should be in the Bible. Seems very odd.
I read somewhere that the writings of the Apostolic fathers - particularly Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch - almost made it into the New Testament. But it was decided by the CC to include only the writings from the Apostles themselves and not their students.
Funny, but none of you guys would have ever come into existence had this been done.
Martin Luther fought to eliminate the Books of Revelation and James from the Bible. Can you imagine all of the cults that would have never come to be, had Revelation not been available to them?
Poppycock!!!!

The Papacy and Priesthood

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5).

Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#424814 Feb 26, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not consider the Apostle Pauls writings to be valid. Right?
You consider the memories of Matthew and Mark to be more accurate scripturally then anything Paul had to say. Right?
Why do you think the Apostles were wrong to include Paul as a brother?
If I'm way off in presuming what you think, then correct me and I won't do it again.
~~~

Let me ask you a question...

___

DO YOU CONSIDER THE BIBLE TO BE VALID?

IF YOU DO ...WHY DO YOU TEACH CONJECTURE DOCTRINES AND FABLES THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN BY THE BIBLE....AND IS CONDEMNED BY THE WORD OF GOD...

WHY DO YOU INCLUDE IDOLS IN YOUR WORSHIP?

WHEN GOD'S WORD FORBIDS IT...IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS...

WHY DO YOU IGNORE GOD'S WORD AND DO YOU ON THING?
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#424815 Feb 26, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
A tennis pro? Wow. That's a sport that requires being in shape. Lol
I went to Saint Agnes a few times. That Parish is excellent. They do a Saturday morning traditional Latin Mass that I have gone to. I'll have to let you know the day before I'm going to Sat morning daily Mass at the Cathedral. Right now, this weekend looks iffy.
Thanks Clay!--I'll just wait for your "call" on which Saturday morning will work the best as to when you will to be there!

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.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 1 hr Catholic24 84,325
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 17 hr Paul Porter1 266
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Jul 28 Gee Tee 9,601
News Hispanics energized by Argentinian pope's first... Jul 27 tomin cali 1
News Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis po... (Mar '14) Jul 26 pazuzu 91
News Pope previews long-awaited climate letter Jul 25 pazuzu 14
News Poll: US views of Francis dim; a plunge in appr... Jul 24 Bug Spray 20
More from around the web