Catholics divided over Pope’s resignation

A+
A
A-

Pope Benedict XVI AP FILE PHOTO

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI’s impending resignation is dividing many Catholics between those who see it as a gesture of hope and renewal for the Church and those for whom it is an admission of weakness.

“It is a break that encourages the Church to examine its conscience to start afresh,” said Paolo Colonnetti from the Focolare lay movement.

“It is not at all a gesture that desacralizes or has any dangers for the Church,” he said.

Father Sergio, superior general of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, a religious congregation, said he too was optimistic.

“I am awaiting with a confident spirit the goodness the Church will receive from this move,” he said.

With rising levels of secularisation especially in Europe “some people in the Church think that going back to tradition is the solution,” he said.

But the Church instead needs “modernity”, he said.

After Benedict said he would resign on February 28 due to old age, many clergymen hailed the “wisdom” and “humility” of his decision, which could open the way for future pontiffs to step down and rejuvenate the old-man hierarchy of the Church.

“It expresses the professional conscience of the pope to his ministry. He is leaving his ministry,” one cardinal told AFP on condition of anonymity.

“The function of the pope was too sacred,” he said.

The cardinal said it could even be “a moment of grace and reflection on the world and on God” and said this in turn could promote more understanding with Protestant and Orthodox believers.

Catholic theologian Hans Kung, an old friend of Benedict’s from university days who is close to the Protestant Church and has been very critical of the pope in the past, was also pleased.

Kung spoke to German television channel Phoenix about his “great respect” for the decision and said it would “change the way we see the papacy”.

But many more traditional Catholics say the act of resignation could spell trouble for the Church.

The cardinal said that many bishops and cardinals “did not understand, some of them were a bit shocked, they had the impression of abandonment.

Vatican officials said there was widespread sadness and dismay following the pope’s announcement.

“It’s a catastrophe, it’s horrible,” one cardinal who heard the pope’s speech was quoted as saying.

Sense of resignation

A French bishop said he had perceived the same sense of resignation in the faces of pilgrims coming to Rome to bid a final farewell to the pope.

“Have we not passed from a sacred papacy to a functional papacy?” the worried bishop said.

For many believers, the papal election is divinely inspired and the pontiff cannot just resign.

Polish cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, late pope John Paul II’s former secretary, was categorical in his judgment immediately after the announcement.

“You don’t come down from the cross,” he said, before going back on his comments.

John Paul II remained in office despite an agonizing illness on the world stage.

Many traditionalists say the act could be seen as a sign of weakness in the face of scandals and could lead to more papal resignations that would lead to a “Protestantization” of the Catholic Church.

Two professors interviewed by French Catholic daily La Croix, Pierre Dulau and Martin Steffens, said the pope’s act contained “symbolic violence”.

For Catholics “the pope is the arc that links heaven and Earth”, they said.

“Everywhere our words are shot down, mocked, relegated to obscurity. The last thing we needed was for the pope to resign,” they said.

The resignation will set up an unprecedented situation in which a pope and his predecessor will be living within a stone’s throw of each other since Benedict will retire to a former monastery on a hilltop inside the Vatican City state.

“It’s not to everyone’s liking,” a prelate told AFP.

“When he walks in the gardens, could one go up to him or will he have security like before? It is risky and costly for the Vatican,” he said.

But Vatican experts said Benedict could be trusted to keep a low profile, as shown by the fact that he is initially moving to the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo while his successor takes office.

“He is keen to stay away,” said Marco Politi, Vatican expert for Il Fatto Quotidiano daily and the author of a biography of Benedict.

“The monastic life, even the hermitic life, suits him,” he said.

Even so, some Church figures have suggested his sojourn within the Vatican might be short-lived.

Perhaps more controversial is the role of his secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein.

The fellow German will stay on as head of the papal household for Benedict’s successor, while remaining Benedict’s secretary and living with him.

“There is a conflict of functions,” Politi said.

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VFPFOEUIFDLDNLIN3U5SN52A5A Gelai

    ‘Could be the reason why:

    “In contemporary history one is reminded again of the scandals in the center of Roman Catholicism. Bank scandals, counterfeiting, laundering of Mafia money from illegal business,(Narcotics, prostitution, kidnapping, etc.) name it you have it, kickbacks, hidden wealth-connections with the Mafia, the CIA, Communists and subtle hypocritical connections within the P2 (Propaganda Due-a secret and powerful Masonic Group headed by Licio Gelli).

    “The graft and corruption involves billions of dollars. All these eventually leads to the untimely and tragic death of Pope John 1 (Albino Cardinal Luciani) who occupied the papacy for only 33 days ending on September 28, 1978. Research and formal investigations show evidences to murder!”

    Reference:(Fajardo, Reynaldo T. Bulletin Today, April 16, 1986, p. 8..). Atty. Reynaldo T. Fajardo, a Catholic and a former professorial lecturer at San Carlos Seminary.
     

    • rouelcalzita

      Refresh your mind…there is no religion in this world w/c is free from any sort of scandals.
      Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spiritually and, sometimes, to moral values.
      And no legendary figures for w/c historicity of religion cannot be established.

  • UrHONOR

    THEN:  One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

     NOW:  Divided, Unholy, Worldly, Mercantile.

    • krizzibarra

      you forget Corrupt, Self-serving, Obsolete and Dishonest

      • Platypus09

        And you are not corrupt, self-serving, obsolete and dishonest? You probably are worse.

      • pinoy_abroad2012

        What about your religion? Are your Pastors or religious leaders not corrupt and self-serving (that they enriched themselves with money from their poor followers by asking 10% of their income). Are they honest, that they give accurate accounting of the money given to them? Examine your group first before you say these things to other group.

  • UrHONOR

    Principio finis est.

  • just_anotherperson

    Catholics support Pope Benedict.

    • krizzibarra

      why?  think naman sana. the guy was nazi youth. later master inquisitor.  torquemada

  • Crazy_horse101010

    cnn news new york cardinal timothy dolan was deposed in connections to accusations of sexual abuse at the archdiocese of milwalkee. he was a long shot for pope. he was also the one who when priests who raped children were founf out about instead of informing the law the priest was given 20000 dollars to leave the church that ended when the american public found out about it

  • mangtom

    The issues discussed in this article point to the fallibility of the Pope. He is just one human being like you and me. No one is infallible, not even the Pope, admit or believe it or not. That is my humble opinion. 

    • aquaman337

      If I may reply to this, the infallibility of the holy father does not mean that he’s not human. The infallibility refers to the decisions of the Holy Father upon doctrinal matters, and other matters of Church regarding its teaching. The Pope’s decision to resign does not affect this.

  • aquaman337

    Catholics may be “divided” in a sense of having different points of view, but one thing is for sure: they are praying for the welfare of the Church and of the future pope. 

  • brunogiordano

    “Ordinary Catholics might not think that dysfunction in the Apostolic Palace has any effect on their lives, but it does: The Curia makes decisions on everything from church closings to marriage annulments to the disciplining of pedophile priests. Papal politics plays into the prayers the faithful say at Mass since missal translations are decided by committee in Rome. Donations the faithful make each year for the pope are held by a Vatican bank whose lack of financial transparency fueled bitter internal debate.” CBSNEWS

    Iyan din ang resulta ng DYSFUNCTION sa CBCP dito sa PILIPINAS.

    Saan ba talaga napupunta ang mga DONATIONS ng mga FAITHFULS?????

  • Platypus09

    He did not seem happy when he was chosen as the Pope years ago, probably due to old age. I was a little bit surprised when he was the chosen one. He had to accept since it was the consensus of the Cardinals.

    The Cardinals could have chosen a younger energetic one at that time other than him. This is a lesson for the College of Cardinals to learn.

    They need to choose someone who will continue the Papal ministry till old age and death

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

      You’re suggesting that they choose someone whose “younger” and “energetic” yet you want that to “continue the papal ministry till old age and death.” That’s a contradiction.

      • Platypus09

        No, it is not contradictory if you know how to read and understand English.

      • UrHONOR

        LOL!  And you know how to read and understand English?  “There will be more Popes to after we die,…..” you call that English?  Huwag kang padalo-dalos sa paghamak sa kapwa mo…..kung hindi ka sumsangayon, gawin mo sa mabuting paraan.  You can disagree without being disagreeable.  And don’t sound to be authoritative on religious matters, as it is obvious you don’t have the background nor the knowledge to be so.  Defending something with with ammunition made of sand does not stand.

    • krizzibarra

      is the church not “infallible” then?

      • Platypus09

        Yes, the church is strong.

        He is not the church. He is only one of the leaders of our times.

        There will be more Popes to after we die, whether we like it or not, when new generations live in this planet.

      • UrHONOR

        >>>He is not the church.<<<
        O, ano na ang nangyari sa "Thous art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church?"  Peter was the church and is through the papacy.  Heads of Mafia and Yakusa and Cosa Nostra and the like will continue to exist ad aeternum.  Get the drift?

  • brunogiordano

    Divided sila dahil sa iba’t ibang point of views nila.

    Kaya mas siguradong iba’t iba din ang kanilang mga ipinagdarasal para sa “WELFARE” ng simbahan at ng future POPE.

  • mangtom

    aquaman337-ganun ba? thanks.

  • brunogiordano

    “In the meantime, the church hierarchy has closed ranks, appearing to the public more than ever like a group of old guys in dress-up, deaf to the real concerns of their members. Allegations of sexual abuse and coverups continue to ripple through the church at high levels, while an insistence on the immorality of birth control seems to define the U.S. bishops’ public position on the entire universe of male-female relations. It is no wonder that the young leave the Roman Catholic Church in larger numbers than members of most other Christian denominations.”
    Washington Post.

    Iyan ang church hierarchy ngayon.

    Makapagbago pa kaya ito?????

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UEHZP52OVNUUPVT3VJNWPUGVLU Peter L

    This is a proof that there is no perfect organization, even the Catholic Church is embroiled in internal problems. This is a sign that Jesus is coming soon! 

    • krizzibarra

      good point about the “perfect” set up.  once you’re of that mindset you stop evolving and improving.  and that “perfection” was set up during the dark ages.

  • muddygoose

    Happens when you ascribe god-like properties to a person. Or when you ascribe human characteristics and frailties to a supposed omnipotent being up there in ‘heaven’.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BXBYZ5EB467UVJRXK4IOM5BX4Y Todd

    Why debate this. Change to a Protestant church and be over with it. No need to get bent out of shape.

    • Platypus09

      You wish.

      Protestantism is dying down.

      Lots of Anglicans left their church after women were allowed to be ordained as ministers.

      • TOINKZ_06

        Not only Anglicans are Protestants. What we can see today, Catholics are dying down because of the teachings and still doing pagan practices, not Bible base.

  • krizzibarra

    when the going gets tough….. etc

  • wakats

    The Pope’s resignation for reason of health is a lesson to be considered in the selection of the next Papacy.

    Not only that the next Pope must be physically healthy but also possesses mental acumen to face and resolve lapses of judgments and weaknesses of the catholic clergy.

    Many sees the problem in the Papal Conclave wherein many of its members are perceived to fraternize with one another based on geographical or societal affiliation and not on the ability and purity of character of a prospect to lead the Catholic hierarchy in an increasingly secular world.

    As implied, nothing much will change in the Vatican….. 

  • $23257130

    pedopilya alis dyan. pppppppppppwwweeehhh kadiri eeeeewwwwww

    • Platypus09

      I prefer to listen to him than you.

      • $23257130

         kampn ni hitler. kampon ng kadiliman. kampon ng demonyo. ppppwwweeehhhh kadiri eeeeeeeeeewwwww

      • Platypus09

        You must be talking about yourself..

        Woot, woot..

        It takes one to know one..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YAB42FXZYNCU3ODZNRCDRDTGAY MORE HUMAN

    matanda na kasi ang ibinoboto… ayan nagkakasakit tuloy

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

    Matthew 23:9: “do not call anyone ​your father on earth, for one is ​your​ Father, the heavenly One.”

    Catholics not only call these blasphemers their father; they add more blasphemy by addressing them as Holy Father.

    Matthew 23:12: “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted”

    These exalting titles will be stripped away from them.

    • ano ikaw

       So don’t call your own father , father. Because it is blasphemous.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        Father in that context is a TITLE. It doesn’t refer to the father in flesh and blood.

        Kung ganan ang flow of reasoning mo, para mo ring sinabi na mali yung itinuro dito ni Jesus.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        Ikaw ang “out of context”. Kung ang “Father” na sinasabi ni Jesus ay “title” then how could you explain the proclamation of St. Paul to himself being a father through the gospel?

        “Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your FATHER through the gospel”. 1 Corinthians 4:15

        So mayroon palang matatawag nating “father” here on earth through the gospel. That’s why Catholics call the priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope “Father” because they become father through the gospel just like St. Paul. Right?

      • Verchez

         Matthew is referring to using “Father” as a religious title.

        Obviously, we have Earthly fathers. Paul was not telling Timothy to
        call him Father, but merely pointing out that he was similar to a father
        to him in the spiritual sense.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        Basahin mong mabuti ang 1 Corinthians 4:15 at ayosin mo ang pag ka intiendi mo sa sinasabi ni St. Paul, “I became your FATHER through the gospel”.

        Di ba religious title yan?? Biological father ba ang pagka intiende mo dyan? Ang tindi naman bro.

        Sabi ni St. Paul, “I became your father” NOT “I’m like your father in the spiritual sense”.

        Gawa ka kaya ng sarili mong bibliya??

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        After the mention of “father” in Matthew 23:9, Jesus continued with this passage on Matthew 23:12: “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

        The context here implies that Father as an exalted title is not for true Christians.

        When Paul mentioned himself as a father to the early Christians, he didn’t expect the followers to begin calling him in reverence, did he? He was not exalting himself. It’s in a different context when compared to the accounts of Matthew.

        The question here is why the clergy keeps exalting titles for themselves. “Most Reverend”, “Holy Father”, “His Eminence”. All these separate them from other members of the church. While the Matthew 23:8 says “whereas all ​YOU​ are brothers”

        Lahat ay pantay-pantay.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        Sorry. But to tell you the truth; mahilig kang magpaligoy-ligoy. Our topic is about the title ‘Father’.

        Based on my explanation and reference to the bible, you have accepted the truth that there is someone here on earth that can be called father in the biblical sense that is “through the gospel”. And it is against to your first premise that NO ONE can be called father here on earth based on your “out of context” interpretation in Mt. 23:9.

        And now, your second premise is; All are brothers.

        So mawala na naman ang punto na mayroon matatawag nating father here on earth through the gospel na bago mo pa lang ina-accept. We will go round in circles if we go on discussing further.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        Oo nga pala hindi pa kita natanong. Anong interpretation mo sa Matthew 23:9? Walang sense ang sinabi ni Jesus ganun ba? Ridiculous ang sinabi ni Jesus kasi imposibleng mangyari yun? Iyon ba interpretation mo?

        Or ganito ka na lang: “Bakit ko papansinin ang sinabi ng text na yan? Dun na lang ako sa sinabi ni Paul.”

        I already gave my interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:15, that Paul wasn’t using the word father as THE father in the context of Matthew. This way there is no contradiction with what the Bible says.

        But by your way of reasoning, you make the two verses contradict.

        Kaya ulit, anong interpretation mo sa Matthew 23:9 such that it will not contradict 1 Cor. 4:15

        Kailan applicable yung sinasabi ng Matthew 23:9? Let me see your “in context” explanation.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        The bible is not contradicting. All the authors are inspired by the Holy Spirit. But not all who reads the bible is guided by the Holy Spirit at dyan papasok ang “out of context” interpretation kagaya ng sa ‘yo.

        Kung gusto mong maghanap ng katotohanan, magpaturo ka sa simbahan na itinatayo ni Kristo dahil ang bibliya ay galing sa simbahan at hindi ang simbahan nagmula sa bibliya. The bible is the product of the church and not the church as the product of the bible. It is the Catholic Church that proclaim the Canon (List) of books that comprises the  Holy Bible believed inspired by the Holy Spirit. Kung walang Catholic Church, walang bibliya dahil maraming nagkalat na mga aklat sa una at ikalawang siglo tungkol sa buhay at aral ni Kristo. Kasama na dito ang mga Gnostic gospels of Judas, Thomas, Mary, Philip at Truth at marami pang iba.

        It was the Catholic Church that proclaims what is the bible today. Kung hindi dahil sa Catholic Church baka Gnostic Gospels ang turo at aral about Jesus ang pananampalataya mo ngayon. Gusto mo? O mag research ka about Gnostic gospels.

        So kung gusto mong maghanap ng katotohanan, it is in the Catholic Church kasi sa kanya galing ang Bibliya.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        Hoy hoy hoy, yung interpretation mo sa Matthew 23:9, hinihintay ko. Tignan ko kung hindi contradicting sa 1 Cor 4:15.

      • ano ikaw

         You are contradicting yourself in all your replies.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

         I saw your reply a few minutes ago but I think it got deleted.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

         I don’t know what happened on my reply. Maybe it was deleted by the PDI moderator.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        Pa-simplehin pa natin. Yung “father” sa Matthew 23:9, saan tumutukoy? Sa biological father o sa title? Takot kang sumagot?

      • ano ikaw

        So why does the bible make a big fuss about someone being called a Father when it is superficial and only a TITLE as you said?

        So you call God the father because thats his title?

        HELLLLOOOOOO?

        If calling a father in hebrew is only to show a sign of respect, so what is so sinful about it? THINK.

        You are missing the point mate.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/iV0XkkNontlsHWTkG2jcuz.PB64A#6b054 F alonso

        Next time you fill your Father’s Name: Mrs. Dark Matter Sr.

        Echos!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        This is what I call B-B-. Kahit ilang beses kong ipaliwanag na hindi tatay ang father na sinabi sa text, hindi pa rin niya ma-gets

        Sinasabi mo ba na pag nakita mo ang word na father eh biological father na lang lagi iyon?

        Father of Medicine, Father of Sociology, Father of Physics. Lahat sayo yun biological father? Patawa ka?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

        MAster Jesus’ teachings are not wrong. your interpretation is.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        I keep on asking all those who answered in this thread. If you think that the interpretation of father as a title and not as a biological father is incorrect THEN WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT?

      • ano ikaw

        So now you call GOD a father in  titler form? Your twisted logic is absolutely abysmal.

        Kaya mali-mali yang interpretasyon mo. Interpret it from the raw language and you will still be wrong.

        You interpret the bible in its English form.

        A Father is a sign of respect or a word of endearment. So if you dont still get it. READ and research the root word/or where the word F-ATHER came from.

        Huwag mag-mamarunong. It only shows your ignorance.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

      Ok then so a lot of people will got to hell bcoz most of us call our male parent as father right ? And when a son or daughter call their father who has always been god fearing, and most loving-non judgemental individual, a holy father, or a holy person, they’re going to hell too ? gosh you’re god sure thinks a lot more like limited thinking humans.

      Just an observation, among the many Christian denominations, the Catholics are the most persecuted by supposedly Christian groups who follow a beloved leader that once said “Do not judge so you won’t be judge”. 

      What I don’t understand with supposed “christians” they tend to exert more efforts pirating new members from the Catholics ranks instead of converting atheists, agnostics, and modern pagans. into christianity.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        “Ok then so a lot of people will got to hell because bcoz most of us call our male parent as father right ?” – WRONG

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

        Well that’s what was being implied I guess.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        Catholics you say are the most persecuted? If you call the exposure of wrong teachings/traditions as a form of persecution then yes. You should realize, it is the Bible that exposes these wrong teachings. Most Catholics don’t read the Bible, that is what they are lacking. They only follow old traditions. When faced with “persecution” they cannot defend with reference to the Bible. They don’t know that most of their traditions have pagan origin.

        The real perscution came from the Catholic church. Remember the crusades? Galileo? Hitler who is backed by Catholic bishops?

        Google this: Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

        the Bible. Yup. Your Bible I may say, came from the Catholic bible (considering that the Catholic Christians were the first and the oldest Chritian group ever) with some deleted books of course to suit your preferred teachings.

        The history of the Bible as we know it today, just to give you an idea originated from several different books that were written by different people from the early christians, different generations and different eras.

         During those times when there was only one Christian group (the precursor of the Catholic Christians) Newly converted Christian Roman Emperor Constantine initiated the idea of the church finally having one official book instead of the different congregations having their own different sets of books used during their services. This was in the year 325 AD. More than 300 years past since the Master went to heaven. Again, the bible was not written by just one person, it was written by different authors from different generations spanning several years apart. From different places at that. The church called upon the most brilliant theologians of that time and collected the different books from different eras and authors, eliminated those books that were not that significant, excluded false books that they think were written by false authors (of course during that time, not all books were authentic). After a  long deliberation. They came up with the HOLY BIBLE. A collections of different books by different authors from different generations. This is practically the reason why the Catholic Christians prefer to base their faith on two things. The bible and traditions, bcoz not all actions or works of the Lord were included in the Bible. Some books did not make it. 

        Of course centuries later, a Catholic Priest would later bolt the church and form his own Church, the first Christian church apart from the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, with a new Bible based on the Catholic bible with some modifications to suit his new church’s teachings. The Priest’s name ? Martin Luther.

      • GKLer

        First the Roman Catholic Church burned people for having and reading the Bible for 600 years (~1200-1800AD).

        Second, The Bible came from the safeguarding of the Jewish people  From Moses (Genesis) to to John (Revelation) – all of them were Jewish, definitely not Catholics. 

        The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, not Latin. The Latin Vulgate Bible by Jerome (380AD) – was the Bible for 1120++ years (now 1632 years old) – it is still in use today as ONE of the sources of the Bible. It isn’t the only source, neither is the 2000 year old Catholic Church the source of the bible.

        By OLDEST and still existing -sources- today:

        400BC Dead Sea Scrolls – Entire book of Isaiah, and portions of every other OT book except Esther.  Discovered in caves and excavations in 1947-1956.

        Last we looked the Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist in 400BC.

        Greek Septuagint (LXX) – Hebrew translated into Greek
        100-400AD Chester Beatty Papyri – 9 OT book in Greek Septuagint.
        350AD Codex Sinaiticus – Entire OT in Greek Septuagint.
        350AD Codex Vaticanus – Entire OT in Greek Septuagint.
        Over 5600 fragments of Greek manuscripts of the NT…
        125AD p52 – a portion of John 18200AD Bodmer p66 – large portion of John.
        200AD Chester Beatty p46 – Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
        225AD Bodmer P75 – John and Luke.
        250AD Chester Beatty p45 – portions of 4 Gospels and Acts
        350AD Codex Sinaiticus discovered in Mt. Sinai in 1856
        350AD Codex Vaticanus – almost complete NT, and in the Vatican Library since 1475AD
        300AD Old Syriac – NT from Greek into Syriac
        300AD Coptic Version – 4 Egyptian dialects
        380AD Latin Vulgate – Jerome translated in Latin OT from Hebrew, Latin NT from Greek.  This became the Bible of the Western Church until 1500AD
        400AD Geniza fragments – portions of OT in Hebrew and Aramaic discovered in 1947 in Cairo Egypt.
        400AD Codex Bezae – Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin
        700-950AD Masoretic Hebrew Text – Ben Asher Manuscripts – Six generations of a family that made copies of the OT using Masoretic Hebrew Text.  Such as the:
        950AD Alepo Codex – Complete OT. 1/4 of this was destroyed in 1947 anti-Jewish riots.
        1008AD Codex Leningradensis – Complete OT in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben-Asher family in 1008AD.. . . . . . .
        1380 AD First English translation by Wycliffe from the Latin Vulgate.  This was a translation from a translation, since Wycliffe didn’t speak Hebrew or Greek.
        1456AD Gutenberg – First printed Bible in Latin.
        1514AD Textus Receptus – Greek NT printed for first time by Erasmus.  He based his Greek NT from only 5 Greek manuscripts which date only as far back as the 12th Century.  This work including revisions became known as the Textus Receptus.  The KJV used this a source among other sources.
        1522AD Polygot Bible – OT in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin.  NT in Latin and Greek.  Erasmus used this to revise his NT later.  Tyndale used  this to translate the OT into English.
        1611AD KJV – English translation and used Textus Receptus as -one- of the sources.  It also used Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Septuagint, Codex Bezae, Erasmus, Tyndale English NT, etc… . . . . . .
        1968AD United Bible Societies – Greek NT from oldest Greek manuscripts dating 175AD.  This Greek NT is used by NASV and NIV.
        1971AD NASV – uses –older– Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available that were not available at the time of KJV.
        1983AD NIV – uses –older– manuscripts not available during the time of KJV.

        MANY OTHERS
        Novum Testamentum Graece
        Nestle-Aland Text
        Samaritan Pentateuch

        So…the simple question to you is DID the CATHOLIC CHURCH or the Vatican write all those manuscripts or did the Jews?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        You are insisting that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the source of the bible. Now I will ask you questions:

        1.  May mga copies ka ba sa mga ipini-presenta mong mga codex, versions, fragments at yan ba ang ginagamit mo?

        2. Or ang bibliya pa rin na ang Catholic Church ang nag proclaim ng Canon of Books that comprises the Holy Bible ang ginagamit mo?

        3. Or nagpaligoy-ligoy ka lang para malihis ang iba sa katotohanan.

      • GKLer

        To answer you, I will ask you questions.

        1.  Do you have copies as well?  I have copies of the Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek texts in an interlinear.  What do you have?  The official language of the Catholic Church WAS Latin for several hundred years not Hebrew-Aramaic.

        2.  What “bible” did Jesus Christ use when he quoted/read from at least 24 books of the Hebrew Testament in the synagogues?  When during his time on Earth, the Catholic Church or the Vatican did not even exist?

        That’s right.  It’s with the JEWISH people.

        3.  Dead Sea Scrolls is dated 400BC.  That’s 400 years before Jesus was born. It has almost every book of the Hebrew Testament. When did the Catholic Church start?
        4.  Is the Catholic Church the author of the Bible which has at least 66 books?

        God is the source of the Bible, not the Catholic Church.  READ Deut 29:29 – That was written by Moses (a Jew) 2000++ years before Jesus Christ was born on Earth.

        Please don’t claim what is not yours.  It’s copyright infringement.

        5.  What year did the Catholic Church start?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        May problema ka sa comprehension. The Catholic Church never claim authorship on any of the book on the bible. Please endeavor to learn facts.

        The Pentateuch (books written by Moses) is not the bible but The Torah. It became part of The Holy Bible when the Catholic Church declare it as part of the Canon of Books inspired by the Holy Spirit that comprises The Book what we known today as the Holy Bible.

        Mayroon ka bang maipakitang ibang religion, institution, or organization responsible for the declaration of the Canon of Books that comprises the Holy Bible?

        Even Martin Luther conceded that the Catholic Church have the word of God;

        “We are compelled to concede to the Catholic Church that they have the word of God; that we receive it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.” (His commentary on John Chapter XIV) O baka mas magaling pa kayo o ang pastor nyo kay Martin Luther.

        One more thing, magaling kang mag copy/paste ng Chapters at Verses ng bible.

        You must learn these facts:

        The bible was divided into Chapters by cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro in the middle of 13th century. (General introduction to sacred scriptures. p. 64 by Dixon)

        Bible chapters was divided into verses by Dominican priest Sanctes Pagninus in 1528. p. 66

      • GKLer

        I have a problem with comprehension?  

        I think you have a problem with reading, replying, and answering my questions which you clearly avoid.

        You keep claiming the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

        I am telling you NO IT DID NOT.  It came from God to the Jewish people to the Gentiles. 

        You are claiming something on behalf of the RCC that was CLEARLY ALREADY EXISTING before the RCC was even established.

        The Dead Sea Scrolls are 400BC!! It has almost every book of the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s 400 years before Christ was born!

        Jesus was reading scriptures at the synagogues.  Whatever he was reading, it did not come from the Roman Catholic Church which hasn’t been established.

        How hard is that for you to comprehend?

        Next, you will accuse me of “being judgmental” or “going around in circles”.

        Yeah, I know your pattern.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        The Hebrew Scriptures is NOT the Bible my friend. The Holy Bible is the book that I mentioned that is the product of the Catholic Church.

        You said, “the bible came from God”. Is God the one writing it? The answer is NO!

        What religion, organization or institution that proclaimed that the HUMAN AUTHORS of the books that comprises the Holy Bible are INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?

        The answer is The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.

        Is it clear to you now?

      • GKLer

        Reply to this at the top.

      • j1u2a3n

        One does not defend the Catholic faith on the Bible alone. Kung hindi sinabi ng Simbahan na paniwalaan ang Bibliya, hindi ako maniniwala.

      • GKLer

        “One does not defend the Catholic faith on the Bible alone.”

        Is this your personal teaching, sentiment or the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching?

        Because it clearly contradicts….
        the teaching from God found in the Bible, written by Paul.
        Paul as everyone knows, was handpicked by Christ to serve God.

        2 Timothy 3:16-17

        (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)
        16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

        (New International Version)
        16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work.

        (King James Version)
        16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, THOROUGHLY furnished unto all good works.

      • j1u2a3n

        Too much copy and paste and you still don’t know how the Bible came about. Deny it all you want, you will have to thank the Catholic Church for the Bible you’re using right now.

      • GKLer

        Once, again, the Catholic Church did not write the Bible, nor is the Church the author.

        Look at the Book of Revelations.

        Revelation 1:1
        This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

        In Deuteronomy, it is clear, God’s words belong to us.  It didn’t come from the Church.

        Deuteronomy 29:29
        The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

        Thank God for the bible we are using. 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        I suggest you to study bible history first.

      • GKLer

        I suggest you read my other post here so you can see that I am quite aware of bible history.  If you think what I posted is incorrect, point it out.

      • j1u2a3n

        To make your argument better, stop using 2 Timothy. Why? Have you read the entire epistle? You’ll be disappointed.

      • GKLer

        The Bible doesn’t contradict itself.  If you think it does, you do not know it at all.

      • j1u2a3n

        There you go. That is why you can never see in the Bible that it is the sole authority. Show me.

      • GKLer

        Q.  Bible is from God yes or no?
        A.  ??

        Q. Who really is the Supreme Authority – God or Man?
        A. ??

        Q.Someone can write a book, 400 years from now the person is declared a saint by your Church… book becomes part of your Church teaching.  Ultimately who wrote the book?
        A.  A MAN WHO IS NOT GOD.

        Anything not found in the Bible is clearly from a MAN who is NOT GOD or CHRIST. Do you get it yet?

      • j1u2a3n

        And still no proof that the Bible should be sole basis. You’ve quoted verses that didn’t prove your argument of the Bible being the ONLY basis. Such a waste of time. Okay, now I’ll help you out. Whoever wrote the books of the Bible were clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Who were responsible for compiling them? The early Christians. The Bible didn’t just appear out of nowhere. The Supreme Authority on matters of faith is the Church through the apostolic succession. Under whose authority? Jesus Christ himself. You love quoting Paul, but clearly you’ve overlooked the fact that he puts importance to tradition together with the scriptures. not the scriotures alone. Your last question is ignorant at best. You mean everyone heard everything what Jesus and the disciple said? No. Just not possible. So everything that Jesus said and did that wasn’t recorded were not from God? Please read John 21:25. Since you love copying and pasting, try reading or watching arguments in sola scriptura. Sola scriptura, you’ll notice, is a losing argument. I’ll leave you and your religion (which is among hundreds of thousands of denomination because people can interpret the Bible by themselves) alone; leave us Catholics alone. Bye.

      • GKLer

        Reply to this at the top

      • j1u2a3n

        Touché! No point answering you. Still no proof. Thanks for trying.

      • Crazy_horse101010

        the reason millions of catholics have left the church is because of the arrogance of the vatican.  reasons number one children raping treating women like second class members. churches stand on divorce and birth control boring semons not listening to the people bullying  members. out of touch.many have become atheists. attacking gays was another reason. the church has no one to blame but themselves

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

        there’s only one God. The loving and forgiving God that I know. And that I have had a real close relationship in recent times. I’m a Catholic Christian. And I don’t judge other Christian groups. I believe that all the other Protestants, Born Again groups, and even Muslims have a shot at going to heaven some day. Even some Atheists or Agnostics of today. I’ve maintained a belief that while we’re alive everyone has a shot. 

        I’m a Catholic Christian. And my faith is not based on Vatican, on the Pope, on the Priests etc. Just like me, they are just servants of the Lord. They may be our imperfect leaders, just like the way Saul was a killer before he became Paul. Just like the way Augustine was a slave of sex before. Just like Peter who was hot headed before. Just like Mathew who was a corrupt tax collector before. etc etc. I’m a Catholic Christian. and I believe only the Master can judge me. Becoz he said so “Do not judge so you won’t be judged”. He will be my judge some day. Not some so called born again christian fundamentalist

      • foreignerph

        What kind of weed have you been smoking? :-p 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

        and the reason why some fundamentalists have left their own church going back to the Caholic Church is because of the arrogance of some pastors and people like you. ;-)

      • Crazy_horse101010

        i guess we will all know on judgement day what god meant im sure he has as the  answer so argue with him

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

      How do you call your male parent? Are you calling him by name? Don’t interpret the verse in Mt. 23:9  “out of context” because even St. Paul proclaimed himself a father;

      “Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have
      many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the
      gospel”. 1 Corinthians 4:15

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        Wow, out of context?!

        You are the one saying that the “father” in that context is the father by flesh and blood. Of course it would appear ridiculous if Jesus was referring to your father by blood. So why do you keep insisting with that interpretation?

        If Jesus was referring to “father” as a TITLE that should not be used for mortals then the Bible text makes sense.

        Wag baligtarin OK?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        And what can you say about St. Paul’s proclamation that he became a father through the gospel??

        Parang iniwasan mo ang tanong na ito ah. Wag magpaligoy-ligoy ng sagot.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2DAZWQGRABQ742P6J6XNTSLGJQ dark matter

        I just answered your question below.

      • j1u2a3n

        Naku, Rene, wag mo nang pag-aksayahan ng oras ang isang taong hinding-hindi makakaintindi. Obviously, isa na naman yan sa mga nakahawak lang ng Bibliya, akala mo alam na ang lahat. 

      • GKLer

        Anyone who appreciates the Bible would try to emulate Christ and his humility.

        So when did anyone here claim “he knows everything?”

      • j1u2a3n

        Read the other posts so you’d know. Catholics–in your own words–appreciate the Bible, but it will never be the sole basis of the faith. Never.

      • GKLer

        The Bible comes from God.  Yes or No?

        Assuming you said No.   We don’t need to talk.  Ignore the rest below.

        Assuming you said Yes:  Then…
        If teachings from Man clearly contradicts what comes from God found in the Bible,  WHO DO YOU FOLLOW?  God or Man?

        Yes there are contradictions.  Plato’s, Aristotle’s teachings (these guys are pagans) among others found their way to the Roman Catholic Church. If you deny this, you really don’t know much about where some of the Catholic doctrines came from   If you are not aware of this as well, then who really is ignorant here?

      • j1u2a3n

        The Church is the pillar of truth.

      • GKLer

        Jesus said:  I am the way the TRUTH and the life.  John 14:6.  

        Q.  Where did the Church get its “truth”?
        A.  Your answer?

        Q. Who gives eternal life?  God or the Church?
        A.  Your answer?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        The Truth was with the church even before bible was.

        1. Do you know when the canon of books became the Holy Bible?
         
        2. Do you know bible history?

        3. Does the early Christians in the first and second century A.D. have read the New Testament?

        4. There was no New Testament bible during the first and second century A.D. All the books written about the life and teachings of Christ is not available to every Christians (wala pang printing press noon, it was invented 1,500 years later). They were taught by ORAL TRADITION take note of that. If the bible is the only source of truth, then what kind of truth does early Christians received? Its not from the bible BUT from ORAL tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned..
        2 Thessalonians 2:15

      • GKLer

        Reply to your post below is above. 

      • ano ikaw

        Title? What the heck.

        Jesus called his father, father, because of respect, not because of just calling his father, father for titler reasons.

      • GKLer

        Paul – Yes, became a father through Christ.

        10,000 guardians in Christ – No, you do not have many fathers as Paul said.

        That’s why Jesus said, do not call anyone your father….and Jesus addressed this against the priests (Pharisees) of that time for their hypocrisy.

        Read the bible in full context.

        I doubt you should even call “Fr. Juan de la Cruz” a father if he molests children…that’s hypocrisy…and a lie.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        If you know how to understand the full context, you will not be subjective.

        Read carefully the phrase; “do not call ANYONE father”. That includes St. Paul right? But St. Paul proclaims himself a father through the gospel. The bible is not contradicting therefore, your interpretation is OUT OF CONTEXT.

      • GKLer

        No I am not being subjective. Who cares if I am or not?
        Focus on the statement below NOT me as a person.

        I am not looking at -one- phrase like you are,
        I am saying look at the entire chapter 23.
        Read Matthew 23:1-39 – in full.

        Reading one phrase leads to an interpretation that IS out of context.

        Q.  Who is Christ talking to/addressing here in Matthew 23?
        A.  The crowds and his disciples.

        Q.  Who is Christ criticizing that lead him to say “do not call anyone rabbi, father”?
        A.  Teachers of the Law, Rabbis, Pharisees that sit in Moses’ seat = Priests during that time.

        Since the Bible is CLEARLY non-contradicting…
        Since Paul is uniquely a father through Christ as he claimed
        Since Paul also said –you do not have many– fathers (even among 10,000 guardians in Christ)
        Since Christ said do not call anyone father… [READ Matthew 23 in full]

        THEN you tell me what that means….
        Q. Can I still call “Fr. Juan de la Cruz” a father if he molests children?
        A.  You answer.

        Here’s an extra for you.

        Q. Paul said you do not have many “fathers” even among 10,000 guardians in Christ. How many priests are there in the Catholic Church?
        A. Over 400,000 Catholic priests around the world – and I would imagine all of them being called “father” like Paul.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        Ang layo ng explanation mo. The more you talk, the more you miss. Very subjective nga. May pa Juan de la Cruz pa.

        When St. Paul proclaim himself as a ‘father through the gospel’,

         Ang tanong: Siya lang ba ang naging, at matawag na ‘father through the gospel’? How about the apostles and disciples of Christ at ang kanilang mga tagapagmana sa pagpalaganap ng ebanghelyo? Anong tawag sa kanila kung i-basi mo sa statement ni St. Paul?

        Hindi mo masabing para lang sa mga apostles ang title na yon dahil perpetual ang command ni Cristo sa pagpalaganap ng ebanghelyo mula sa kanyang panahon until the present;

        Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 
        Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
        And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
        world. Mt. 28:19-20

        To quote you: “Can I still call “Fr. Juan de la Cruz” a father if he molests children?”

        One thing I can advice to you; Don’t be judgmental to anybody. God will also judge you on how you judge others. Judgement is none of your business. Don’t be like the Pharisees. Mind your own sins. Why bother on the specks on others eye when there is a log blocking your own eye. According to the bible: All have sinned.

        Title will remain a title no matter who the person is. I’ll give you a very elementary example: Our country has been governed by many presidents since its founding BUT no matter how good or bad they were, they are still president.

      • GKLer

        1.  You said malayo ang explanation ko.

        My answer:  No.  I am focusing on the entire Matthew 23 context.  Take the time to read it, so we don’t waste time here. You are focusing on one phrase Matthew 23:9 which has no context.

        2.  You said, ano ang tawag sa mga apostles based on what Paul said?

        My answer:  What does the Bible really call them?  Paul said it (father through Christ).  Did any other apostle say it or claim the same?

        3.  You said, hindi mo masasabi ang title is only for the apostles….

        My answer:  Refer to 2.

        4,  You said, don’t be judgemental…

        My answer.  There you go again.  I ask a simple and real situation question – you say I am judgemental. If I “correct” you, you will say I am judgemental.  You really need to know what judgemental means if you will keep going around falsely accusing people of it. 

        5.  You said, title remains…

        My answer.  Check your Bible. Christ speaks of teachers and false teachers, prophets and false prophets.  Do you understand what –false– means?

        6.  You said, mind your own sins…

        My answer:  Check your Bible. What did the servants of Christ do when they went from city to city?  Did they or did they not teach/correct/set-straight/warn/criticize/etc… the people in all those cities?  How did the people react to them?  How did Christianity spread then?  Didn’t the Spanish missionaries correct the pagan-Bathala-worship/practices of the Filipino natives when they arrived? How do you expect the prophecy from Christ to come true then?  Matthew 24 – This gospel wil be preached in the entire world, and then the end will come.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        Teaching, correcting, setting-straight, warning, criticizing are different from condemning if you have a dictionary my friend if you knew your actions first and foremost.

      • GKLer

        Precisely.  So use that dictionary and find out what “question” means.  

        Because I have this impression you believe question = teaching = correcting = judging others.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        Madali lang mag research ng iba-ibang klase ng dictionary sa internet pero wala akong nakitang meaning na identical in what you believe.

        But wait, meron akong nakita sa bibliya na identical sa impressions mo (judgmental of others). Mababasa sa Luke 18: 10-14

        “Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican. The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up
        his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

      • GKLer

        I know your pattern. Once you run out of things to say, you resort to accusing people of being judgmental.

        Since you don’t know your own Bible, I am certain, you have no idea what you posted really means.

    • https://me.yahoo.com/a/iV0XkkNontlsHWTkG2jcuz.PB64A#6b054 F alonso

      How do you call your father,you call him Popsie or Poppy?
      When you fill your basic info,Father’s name: Dark Matter Sr.

      The problem with you is that you give negative connotation to words used by other people fron other religious Sect.

      • Kerl Bryan Domingo

        Possibly, he is an anti-Catholic

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZCKNKWEVTCZ4SI7JKBUSVPEGUM lumens

        What the verse Matthew 23:9 is implying is all about calling Your Priest as your SPIRITUAL Father that is the type of fatherhood that the verse is telling us. In reality Catholic Priest functions as a Spiritual Father directly violating the verse.

    • Kerl Bryan Domingo

      In every rule, there is an exemption, there are so many verses in the Bible that they call man as Father. Sa katunayan, sa mga Gospels, napakarami and also sa old testament. ‘Di nyo lang inuunawa ang nilalaman ng verse.

    • j1u2a3n

      Kaya libo-libo ang Christian denomination dahil sa mga taong tulad mo. Ang Bibliya ay hindi iniinterpret ng kahit sino lang. Kailangan person of authority ang mag-iinterpret nito. At, oo nga pala, nagpasalamat ka na ba sa mga Katoliko sa Bibliya na gamit mo?

      • GKLer

        Catholics did not produce the Bible.  You are probably thinking of the Latin Vulgate Bible translated from Hebrew and Aramaic by Gerome in 405AD.
        For starters, the first 5 books came from God and was written by Moses 4000+ years ago….way before the Vatican or Catholics even existed.

      • j1u2a3n

        Very ignorant response indeed. Very typical of those who doesn’t understand who the Bible came to be.

      • GKLer

        …continuing my reply….

        Next you will claim the Roman Catholic Church didn’t ban the Bible or burned those who read them or possessed them.

        This is what “infallible” Popes expressing their version of the “will of God” did for 600 years:1184AD Synod of Verona – Declared heretics be burned (Bible groups, Catholics who questioned the power of the pope).
        1199AD Pope Innocent III – Burned French Bibles, and did not permit the people to have more.
        1203-1808 50+ million people are estimated to have been murdered and tortured by the RC Inquisition for crimes including possession and reading the Bible in English, French, Spanish, German etc.
        1208-1226 The RC army was sent to kill Albigenesian Christians.
        1215AD Lateran Council declared heretics be burned and property taken.
        1229AD The RC Inquisition executed and confiscated the property of 32000 Al bigensian Christians in Toulouse France.
        1229AD Canon 14 – Church Council of Toulouse – We prohibit the laity to have OT and NT, and their translation of these.
        1234AD Pope Gregory IX ordered Bible burning.
        1234AD Council of Tarragona – No one may possess OT and NT, you must turn them over to the local bishop with 8 days, so that they may be burned.
        1408AD Synod of Oxford – Declared “heresy” to posses an unauthorized English Bible (a Bible not approved by the Roman Catholic Church).
        1559AD Pope Pius IV – Index of Trent 1559 – Index of Librorum Prohibitorum – Whoever reads or has a translation cannot be absolved from his sins until he turns in his Bible. All unauthorized Bible are forbidden.
        1525AD 6000 Tyndale NT burned.
        1600AD 10000 Bibles burned by order of Ferdinand II.
        1713AD Pope Clement II – Condemned reading the Bible.
        1844AD Pope Gregory – Declared those favoring Bible societies were guilty of the greatest crime against God and Church.

      • j1u2a3n

        So what do these half truths prove?

      • GKLer

        It proves you don’t know your own Church.

      • j1u2a3n

        It only proves that the Catholic Church cannot be explained to spectators like you. Thanks for all the Biblical verses, but you haven’t really proven–not a single verse–that the Bible is the sole authority. And under who’s authority are you able to interpret the Bible? By the way, you still haven’t thank us for the Bible you’re using. Haven’t you found the right materials to find out how the Bible came to be? Hint: Why is it that you can’t find the Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas or whatnot in the Bible?

      • GKLer

        Jesus quoted from 24 books of the Hebrew Testament.  He validated it.

        …..and be sure to read this before you comment further…..

        Jesus said this in Matthew 5

        17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

      • j1u2a3n

        So the apostles preached using the Bible? Poor them if they didn’t.

      • GKLer

        Read Acts 17:11

        11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and EXAMINED THE SCRIPTURES every day to see if what Paul said was true.

      • j1u2a3n

        did it say ONLY?

      • GKLer

        Read
        2 Timothy 3:16-17,

        Matthew 5:17-20.

      • j1u2a3n

        Very ignorant response indeed. Very typical of those who doesn’t understand how the Bible came to be.

      • GKLer

        I guess I am ignorant, but what does that make you?

        First the Roman Catholic Church burned people for having and reading the Bible for 600 years (~1200-1800AD).

        Second, The Bible came from the safeguarding of the Jewish people  From Moses (Genesis) to to John (Revelation) – all of them were Jewish, definitely not Catholics.   So stop claiming the Catholic Church produce the bible.

        Incidentally,the word Catholic comes from the Latin word “catholicus” which means “universal” and originated in the 14th century.   The official language of the Roman Catholic Church is Latin for a very long time because that was the language of the Western Roman Empire. Later it became Greek.

        The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, not Latin. The Latin Vulgate Bible by Jerome (380AD) – was the Bible for 1120++ years (now 1632 years old) – it is still in use today as ONE of the sources of the Bible. It isn’t the only source, neither is the 2000 year old Catholic Church the source of the bible.

        By OLDEST and still existing -sources- today:
        400BC Dead Sea Scrolls – Entire book of Isaiah, and portions of every other OT book except Esther.  Discovered in caves and excavations in 1947-1956.

        Last we looked the Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist in 400BC.

        Greek Septuagint (LXX) – Hebrew translated into Greek
        100-400AD Chester Beatty Papyri – 9 OT book in Greek Septuagint.
        350AD Codex Sinaiticus – Entire OT in Greek Septuagint.
        350AD Codex Vaticanus – Entire OT in Greek Septuagint.
        Over 5600 fragments of Greek manuscripts of the NT…
        125AD p52 – a portion of John 18200AD Bodmer p66 – large portion of John.
        200AD Chester Beatty p46 – Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
        225AD Bodmer P75 – John and Luke.
        250AD Chester Beatty p45 – portions of 4 Gospels and Acts
        350AD Codex Sinaiticus discovered in Mt. Sinai in 1856
        350AD Codex Vaticanus – almost complete NT, and in the Vatican Library since 1475AD
        300AD Old Syriac – NT from Greek into Syriac
        300AD Coptic Version – 4 Egyptian dialects
        380AD Latin Vulgate – Jerome translated in Latin OT from Hebrew, Latin NT from Greek.  This became the Bible of the Western Church until 1500AD
        400AD Geniza fragments – portions of OT in Hebrew and Aramaic discovered in 1947 in Cairo Egypt.
        400AD Codex Bezae – Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin
        700-950AD Masoretic Hebrew Text – Ben Asher Manuscripts – Six generations of a family that made copies of the OT using Masoretic Hebrew Text.  Such as the:
        950AD Alepo Codex – Complete OT. 1/4 of this was destroyed in 1947 anti-Jewish riots.
        1008AD Codex Leningradensis – Complete OT in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben-Asher family in 1008AD.. . . . . . .
        1380 AD First English translation by Wycliffe from the Latin Vulgate.  This was a translation from a translation, since Wycliffe didn’t speak Hebrew or Greek.
        1456AD Gutenberg – First printed Bible in Latin.
        1514AD Textus Receptus – Greek NT printed for first time by Erasmus.  He based his Greek NT from only 5 Greek manuscripts which date only as far back as the 12th Century.  This work including revisions became known as the Textus Receptus.  The KJV used this a source among other sources.
        1522AD Polygot Bible – OT in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin.  NT in Latin and Greek.  Erasmus used this to revise his NT later.  Tyndale used  this to translate the OT into English.
        1611AD KJV – English translation and used Textus Receptus as -one- of the sources.  It also used Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Septuagint, Codex Bezae, Erasmus, Tyndale English NT, etc… . . . . . .
        1968AD United Bible Societies – Greek NT from oldest Greek manuscripts dating 175AD.  This Greek NT is used by NASV and NIV.
        1971AD NASV – uses –older– Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available that were not available at the time of KJV.
        1983AD NIV – uses –older– manuscripts not available during the time of KJV.

        MANY OTHERSNovum Testamentum GraeceNestle-Aland TextSamaritan Pentateuch

        So…the simple question to you is DID the CATHOLIC CHURCH or the Vatican write all those manuscripts or did the Jews?

    • boldyak

      THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH NON CATHOLICS, THEY READ AND STUDY THE BIBLE LITERALY…BWAHAHAHA…ANO TAWAG MO SA ASAWA NG NANAY MO?….BWAHAHAHAHA….AHHHH..BAKA TIYO DAHIL ANAK SA LABAS…BWAHAHAHA

      • GKLer

        The Bible is divided into these “styles”:
        Poetry
        Prophecy
        Parables
        Teachings
        Letters
        Historical

        The first three will likely be difficult for most, because many of them are highly figurative and symbolic – non literal.

        The rest, will easily have literal –
        Specially the commands from God and Christ.  How else do you follow God, when God says “DO this” or “DON’T do this” ?

      • Hfxwst

        Yeah – but conveniently skip over the section that says it is OK to keep slaves as long as they are from a neighboring country, and it is OK to sell daughters – but they do focus on persecuting gays and abusing humans that are born women – if you are going to follow the bible, can you do just selective parts?

      • KianFF

        Kapag tumitira naman kayo ng mga ganyan, huwag niyo naman sabihing Katoliko lang? Kasi kahit mga Anglican, Aglipayan, Orthodox at iba pang simbahan ganun din? OK BA? 

        Para naman hindi lang Katoliko ang sagot na makuha niyo! Ang gusto niyo kasi madaming nag-eexplain. Ayan tanungin niyo din sila, bakit Father tawag nila sa pari nila! :))

  • ano ikaw

    I thought these priests live by the word of God. Following Jesus’ footsteps and his agony on earth.

    Being old and weary is not an excuse to resign from something is so divine.

    Was he afraid of blackmail? Or was he blackmailed? For what?

    • Platypus09

      Late reaction, we passed all that already.

      • ano ikaw

        Really, and so what was the conclusion? That he has some skeletons in the closets. Whatever.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

      ” it’s not about power, it’s about service..” – Benedict XVI..

      For him, there’s no point hanging on to power if you can’t do servce as efficient as before anymore due to health problems

      • ano ikaw

        Jesus died in the worst conditions while serving us. John Paul did while serving the world.

        What health problems?  A divine role gifted by God is not worth giving up no matter what.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

        the thing about some so called “christians” ? they don’t act like one.hehe. the way they judge and sentence people to hell leaves a bad taste in Christ’s teachings. This is the reason why in this present secular world that we’re in, the young prefers to just remain godless. Because people like the fundamentalists, tend to zap out whatever hopes the young has in going to heaven someday. 

        What I appreciate about Chatholic Christians ? I guess they’re one of those ( together with some good Protestants) types of people who believe that even Muslims have a shot at going to heaven some day. Unlike some born again groups who believe that they are the only ones going to heaven some day.hehe. It’s a good thing my God is loving and forgiving and does’nt think the way some so called born again groups does

      • Hfxwst

        The Catholic Church lost its exclusive key to heaven long ago.  The Catholics with a brain are OK, those of blind faith are the dangerous – same with any faith.  Extremism is as ugly in any faith, Muslin and Catholic included.

      • ano ikaw

         Who said so? Lucifer, I guess.

      • Hfxwst

        CBCP still teaching superstition to the under educated? Suppose so, it keeps the pesos rolling in!

      • rouelcalzita

        So, your religion is key to heaven.
        Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spiritually and, sometimes, to moral values.

      • Hfxwst

        No, your personal relationship with God is the key to heaven; not the institution that charges you dues that you choose to belong to.

    • Noel

       Yet, the priests claim they’re Christ’s representatives on earth.

      • Hfxwst

        All religion officials claim they are Christ’s representative on earth, not just Catholic Priests.  Truth is, there is no VIP or express line to get into heaven.  A pope has to stand in the same line up as a plumber.

    • KianFF

      The Pope is concerned about how could he function if he finds himself hard to do things already.

      Hindi naman niya hahayaang gamitin ng mga demonyong Protestante ang kahinaan niya para sirain ang simbahan, kaya ayun gusto niyang may pumalit sa kanya para mas pagtibayin ang depensa laban sa mga  kampon ng kadiliman, ang mga Protestante!

  • TinimbangNgunitKulang

    Jesus’ church is eternal but the Roman Catholic Church is not. It’s time for the usurpation to end.

    • ano ikaw

      So how can you maintain and continue Jesus’ Church? That’s the reason why the RC church exists to continue Jesus’ teachings and legacy.

      I am not implying that other Christian sects don’t.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/TAEVWXIEB5KWKPX2SKH6DTDIOE Nes

        TAMA KA DYAN, ANO-IKAW.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/iV0XkkNontlsHWTkG2jcuz.PB64A#6b054 F alonso

    I am not fully convinced that Papa Kabeer had resigned due to his advanced age.There is something between the lines in his valid reason that compels me to believe that his advanced age was the sole reason for not carrying the Cross until his death.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/iV0XkkNontlsHWTkG2jcuz.PB64A#6b054 F alonso

    Wala kay Pope Benedict yung aura ng mukha nina Pope John Paul 6,at yung sinundan nito (yung binaril ni Ali Agca).

    Sana yung susunod na Pope may maaliwalas na mukha. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

      Pope Paul VI at Pope John Paul II

  • gabbybal

    NO DIVISION…. MOST CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS I BELIEVE UNDERSTAND WHY THE POPE RESIGNS FOR HEALTH REASON. IN FACT WE SALUTE HIM FOR HIS EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH. MAY HE ENJOY HIS RETIREMENT…. GOD IS TAKING CARE OF HIS CHURCH.

    • foreignerph

      Salute and hail as much as you want but the old Nazi was forced to resign for his grave management failures, – like the chaos he caused in the reform of the Curia and badly addressed scandals like the widespread catholic child abuse, vatileaks, financial practices by the vatican bank (being involved in money-laundrying) and recently the homosexual undercover network that was discovered emanating from or connected at least with the Vatican. Bertone must have been *not* amused.

      As an old style doctrinarian he also failed to tap into modernity and rationality leading to massive defection of the few catholics left in the West. The church will now have to rely on some candidates in gullible third world countries for a new pope since in the West most cardinals already past their expiration date or are brain-dead. Ratzi left his church in pole position on the road to oblivion.

    • Noel

      No division?  When were you born?  Catholic leaders continue to disagree and fight among one another on every issue.  Even the way they make announcement and issue statements.  The Catholic Church tries so hard to tell the members to be united even in voting but this never succeeds.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

    Parang na late ang mga accounts ni Pablo na Pablo316 at Pablobnb. Nakaka-enjoy kasi minsan mag monologue siya assaulting the Catholic Church gamit ang iba’t-ibang accounts.

  • muddygoose

    “Father”, “His Eminence”, blah, blah… who cares? ZEALOTS. Why not just go out and kill everyone who does not have the same views? Oh yeah, you have been doing that already.

  • Kerl Bryan Domingo

    O.A. ng news, we all understand why Pope resigns. Magiging PROTESTANT ang church? Impossible, Jesus said, He will be with us until the end of the Earth, and even the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. MATTHEW 16:18 “And thou art Peter, and from this stone, I will built my church and I will give you the key to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind here on earth will also be bind in heaven, and whatever you lose here on earth will also be lose in heaven and EVEN THE GATES OF HADES WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.” Kaya huwag na huwag nyong sinasabing magiging protestant ang church. Napakaimpossible, at sa tingin ko, napaka O.A. ng news na ito. -IAN CFD

    • foreignerph

      “Jesus said”? Who says so? The politically selected gospels in Nikea have been written very long after the death of Jesus and they are probably ridden with false memories in the best case and confabulations in the worst. Where is the evidence that those writings were the word of god (if there is one, an assumption that is also unproven)?
      “The bible is true because he says so” is a pretty circular way of reasoning.
      So spare us all that blab. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/TAEVWXIEB5KWKPX2SKH6DTDIOE Nes

      Tama ka, Bryan. Masyadong O.A. nga ang news. Pero nabahala sila sa biglaang pagre-resign ng papa.

      Kasi, sa totoo lang naging divided na ang catholic church noon ng mag-elect ang halos kalahati ng western community ng pangalawang pope (anti-pope, ‘ika nga). Nagkaisa lang sila nang magkasundo ang pope at anti-pope at mga cardinal na panatilihing sentro ang Vatican hierarchy.

  • pololoy

    Latin: PETRUS ROMANUS
    English: PETER THE ROMAN
    Italian: PIETRO ROMANO

    Cardinal Tarcisio PIETRO Evasio Bertone, born in ROMANO Canavese, Piedmont, Italy… is the current Vatican Secretary of State and Camerlengo.. (PIETRO ROMANO = PETRUS ROMANUS)

    The function of a Camerlengo is to serve as the caretaker of the Vatican when the pope dies or abdicates up to the time that a new pope is elected.

    Please notice that in the Prophecy of St. Malachy, Petrus Romanus was not listed as the 112th pope of the church…It is possible that after Pope Benedict XVI, no pope will be elected due to a power struggle between rival groups of cardinals for an extended period of time just like the one prior to Pope Celestine V… If that’s the case, in extreme persecution, Cardinal Bertone (Petrus Romanus) will serve as careteker of the church (will feed the flock) through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. … 

    By the way, Abraham was born 1,948 years after Adam was created by God. The State of Israel was born in 1948…!!! It declared its independence on May 14, 1948…

    Daniel 9:24 – “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

    The Second Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman soldiers 70 years after the birth of Jesus Christ.. 

    1948 + 70 = 2018, could be the start of many tribulations…

    REVELATION 17:9-14, 9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.:”

    WHO IS GOING TO BE THE 8th KING?

    • Kerl Bryan Domingo

      We are not sure with that .. Only God knew that . We just have to prepare.

    • boldyak

      nice calculation…..70 weeks?….1948+70 weeks = 2018?????..BWAHAHAHAHA…

      • pololoy

        you have wisdom…

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/TAEVWXIEB5KWKPX2SKH6DTDIOE Nes

      Galing mo sa numerology! Yan ba natutunan mo sa pastor mo?

      By the way, please be informed that Pope Benedict XVI is the 266th pope.

      • pololoy

        sorry, but i am not a protestant… and i suppose you have not yet read the Prophecy of St. Malachy

        thank you

  • regd

    The pope eventually woke up, smells the coffee and then – BOOM! Finally decided enough is enough! From hereon, he will start telling the truth and actually starts living.

    • Noel

      That’s why no one believes he resigned due to health reason.  There was a Pope who died mysteriously when he ordered an investigation to a financial scandal he discovered at Vatican.

  • daniboy2012

    CATHOLICS WILL NOT ONLY BE DIVIDED BUT WILL DESINTERGRATE….THAT’S THE PROPHECY!!!!!!!

    • boldyak

      PROPHCY OF A FOOL???….BWAHAHAHA

      • daniboy2012

        SAME AS IN NOAH’S DAYS!!!!!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZLR76JEWFTBW54T2JIOPPASXA4 The Franchise

      hahahahaha….funny

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

      Galing ka siguro nag palm reading.

  • daniboy2012

    CATHOLICISM HAS NO PLACE IN THE 21ST CENTURY…ITS ANCIENT RITUALS, ROBES/CROSS DRESSING ARE ONLY FOR ENTERTAINMENT LIKE CIRCUS!!!

    • Noel

      Examples are the Fiestas.

    • KianFF

      So you trying to say these ancient things are just for entertainment?

      Hmmmmm….

      Orthodox? They use it too.
      Anglicans? They use it too.Aglipayans? They use it too.
      Muslims? They use it too.
      Jews? They use it too.
      Buddhist? They use it too.
      Hinduism? They use it too.
      So these large religions have no place in the 21st century? So who has the rights? Those who came in faction with these listed?

      • daniboy2012

        exactly!….all have captivated the weakness of human minds, but now with all info/knowledge available…they are exposed and its up to every intelligent with freeminds to ESCAPE their traps. ITS YOUR CHOICE ..AS FOR ME I BROKE THE SHACKLES OF IGNORANCE LONG TIME AGO AND NEVER LOOK BACK….ITS ALL BUT ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

  • Noel

    When are Catholics ever united in anything?

  • bogli_anakdami

    flip gung gongs eh kapit tuko kay kaksaker padre dumbassos kc ayaw gamitin ang utak…

    naniniwala ang mga satsat at pananakot of going to hell if flip gung gongs do not conform to its bastardized teachings…

  • Guest

    The butler did it. Paolo Gabriele . ‘VatiLeaks scandal’.

  • txtman SUPOTiful Bading

    DI NA NAKAYANAN NG CHUPAPA ANG KABAKLAAN AT KABABUYAN SA VATICAN

    KAYA AYAN NAGRESIGN

    ANG MGA KATOLICOCK BISHOPS NAGTATAKBUHANG PARANG MGA MANOK NA

    WALANG ULO

    AHAHAHAHAHHAAY SUPOTIFUL

  • Bisdak_kaayo

    ito ang sabi ng biblia

    Matthew 6:5-75 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 

    pero itong mga katoliko, NAG POPROCESSION pa, sa halip itago ang pagdarasal, ISINISIWALAT sa buong publiko, ang kanilang rightheousness sa pagdarasal sa mga mata ng mga tao.

    • KianFF

      Siguraduhin mong hindi kayo nagdadasal sa publiko ha!

      :)))

  • ano ikaw

    Sa mga katulad ni Dark Matter.

    So now you call GOD a father in  titler form? Your twisted logic is absolutely abysmal.

    Kaya mali-mali yang interpretasyon mo. Interpret it from the raw language and you will still be wrong.

    You interpret the bible in its English form, kaya mali-mali yang reasoning mo.

    A Father is a sign of respect or a word of endearment. So if you dont still get it, READ and research the root word/or where the word F-ATHER comes from.

    Huwag mag-mamarunong. It only shows your ignorance.

  • pololoy

    REVELATION 17:8-11
     
    8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.
    9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.
    10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 
    11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction”…
     
    On FEBRUARY 11, 1929, the Lateran Treaty was signed between the government of Italy and the Holy See to settle the “Roman Question”. The treaty recognizes full Papal sovereignty over the State of Vatican City. Thereby, creating an independent state (kingdom) within Italy. 
     
    List of Popes since the creation of the sovereign state (kingdom) of the Vatican:
    1. Pius XI   1922 – 1939
    2. Pius XII  1939 – 1958
    3. John XXIII  1958 – 1963
    4. Paul VI  1963 – 1978
    5. John Paul I  1978
    6. John Paul II  1978 – 2005
    7. Benedict XVI  2005 – 2013
        …………………………… Petrus Romanus (from the prophecy of St. Malachy)
    8. (The beast WHO ONCE WAS, AND NOW IS NOT, AND YET WILL COME UP OUT OF THE ABYSS is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction..)
     
    WHO IS GOING TO BE THE 8TH KING?

    • KianFF

      WOW!

      Ang galing niyo naman pong magcompute! 
      May math na din pala sa theology?

      • pololoy

        you can answer your question yourself, i guess.. 

  • rouelcalzita

    My Dear Commentator…there is no religion in this world w/c is free from any sort of scandals.
    Regardless, of any religion/sect you belong.
    Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spiritually and, sometimes, to moral values.

  • GKLer

    RENE:

    Rene:  The Truth was with the church even before bible was.

    Me:  Read Deuteronomy 29:29.  Then tell me when that was written by Moses, and when the Catholic Church was established. YES it was WRITTEN down, not passed on orally…see below for examples.

    Rene: Do you know when the canon of books became the Holy Bible?

    Me:  I will ask you a question, what “bible” did Jesus Christ read from in the synagogues as per Jewish tradition?  He quoted and read from at least 24 books of the Hebrew Testament. Example:  Luke 4:16-21 (Jesus reads from Isaiah and says today this prophecy is fulfilled). Hint:  It wasn’t a Catholic Bible.

    Rene:  Do you know bible history?

    Me:  Read my posts, and below.

    Rene: Does the early Christians in the first and second century A.D. have read the New Testament?

    Me:  Mark covers the biblical events mainly from 29AD-33AD. It is believed Mark was completed in 60-65AD in Rome while Paul was imprisoned.  Luke covers the events from 3BC to 33AD. It was written likely in Caesarea and completed between 56-58AD -before- Acts was completed in 61AD (see Acts 1:1) while Luke was in Rome with Paul -after- he returned from Philippi with Paul at the end of the 3rd missionary journey -and while- Paul was waiting 2 years in prison at Caesarea.  John was likely written near or at Ephesus in 98AD. It covers “After prologue” and the period from 29-33AD. It is generally believed that John wrote his Gospel after his return from exile on Patmos. Emperor Nerva (96-98AD) recalled many who had been exiled during Emperor Domitian’s reign. John is believed to have died peacefully at Ephesus in the 3rd year of Emperor Trajan (100AD).  Matthew was completed circa 41AD. It covers what transpired from 2BC (~birth of Christ)  to 33AD. It was written in Hebrew, then later it was translated into Greek. It was written in Palestine, the exact year isn’t known, however – there is evidence in some manuscripts dating in the 10th century that point to 41AD.  Jerome (aka St. Jerome) in 380AD (Latin Vulgate Bible) translated the Bible into Latin from Hebrew OT and Greek NT.  Jerome stated that the Hebrew text of Matthew was preserved during his day (4th century).

    Here is an example that involved Paul: Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. IT SAYS “examined the Scriptures”. OBviously they read something that was written down. Just as Jesus did in the synagogues.

    That should answer your question.

    Rene:  There was no New Testament bible during the first and second century A.D. All the books written about the life and teachings of Christ is not available to every Christians (wala pang printing press noon, it was invented 1,500 years later). They were taught by ORAL TRADITION take note of that.

    Me:  Moses (first writer of the Bible) was ordered by God to write the Law. From Jesus:  “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” – John 5:46. Next, do you need really need a printing press when Moses was able to write about Jesus?  Next, What do you think Jesus was READING in the synagogues when he quoted from 24 books of the Hebrew Testament?  Example: Luke 4:16-21.  If you think everything was ORAL TRADITION, why then do we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to 400BC?  Also refer to what I just wrote above.  It will tell you when WRITTEN texts were completed.

    Again, here is an example that involved Paul: Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. IT SAYS “examined the Scriptures”. OBviously they read something that was written down. Just as Jesus did in the synagogues.

    Rene:  If the bible is the only source of truth, then what kind of truth does early Christians received?

    Me:  Christians gathered right?  Someone spoke from eye-witness-experience, someone read scriptures. Example:  There were at least 11 people who witnessed Jesus going up to heaven (Luke 24:51). Here is an example that involved Paul:  Acts 17:11  “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”.  IT SAYS “examined the Scriptures”. OBviously they read something that was written down. Just as Jesus did in the synagogues.

    Rene:  Its not from the bible BUT from ORAL tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned..2 Thessalonians 2:15

    Me:  No, it was also written down, as I have explained above.  From Jesus:  “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he WROTE about me.” – John 5:46.

    • GKLer

      RENE:   Take the time to read that, and don’t say, “I am going around in circles”. or “I am being judgmental”…which are your favorite lines.

      I answered ALL your questions objectively and DIRECTLY.. It’s up to you what to do with it.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        You have answered in a MESSY manner.

      • GKLer

        Messy…No.  

        You just lack reading skills. …and you like to accuse people of being judgmental….

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        You are.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

         You are.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

      Quoting you: “Read Deuteronomy 29:29.  Then tell me when that was written by Moses,
      and when the Catholic Church was established. YES it was WRITTEN down,
      not passed on orally…see below for examples.”

      Your statement is a big joke! Dahan-dahan lang. Not passed on orally?

      From the creation of Adam to the birth of Moses, nasusulat na ba ‘yon?? Wag mong sabihin na hindi alam ng mga Israelita ang storya ni Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph until Moses wrote it.

      Tanong: Sa paanong paraan nalalaman ng mga Israelita ang storya ng mga patriarka?

      Is it through written scriptures? or by ORAL TRADITION..

      • GKLer

        You really don’t know your own Bible. 
        IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN AS COMMANDED BY GOD.

        Exodus 17:14
        Then the LORD said to Moses, “WRITE this on a scroll as something to be remembered……

        John 5:46
        “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he WROTE about me.” ..

        Q. Did Moses have lunch with Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus?
        A. NO. God ordered Moses to write down His Words. Exodus 17

        How hard is that to understand?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        You messed up again. Our issue is about ORAL tradition.

        Going back to my question;

        How did the Israelite  knew the story of the creation of Adam down to the patriarchs; Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? Is it by written scriptures or by ORAL TRADITION?

        Reminder: Genesis was written by Moses who was born centuries after Joseph.

      • GKLer

        Perhaps you should write your questions better.

        REFER to the above.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        You still don’t get the point. The issue we discussed is about oral tradition which you protest.

        Going back to my question:

        How did the Israelite knew the story  of the creation of Adam down to the patriarchs; Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? Is it through written scriptures or by ORAL TRADITION?

        Reminder: Moses was born centuries AFTER Joseph.

        O ayan may clue ka na.

      • GKLer

        You still don’t get it do you?

        Your question:  How did the Israelite knew the story  of the creation of Adam down to the patriarchs; Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? Is it through written scriptures or by ORAL TRADITION?

        My answer:  Where did the Israelites READ about Adam, Noah etc…  They read it in Genesis which God ordered Moses to WRITE for them to READ.  That much is certain and there is no doubt about that.  John 5:46

        However,

        Maybe this is how your question should be:  Was the account about Adam, Eve, Noah orally passed down so that Moses could write about it  or did God tell Moses to write the account?

        IS THAT YOUR REAL QUESTION?

        My answer:  The bible says this, Exodus 34:1,27, Numbers 33:2.

        Any other answer is non-biblical a.k.a. guess work a.k.a. influenced by Men of science rather than Men of God.

        Here think about this:

        DO you believe God is the true author of the Bible?

        If Genesis is based on oral tradition THEN clearly Genesis is not from God but from man’s oral tradition…by word of mouth…easily corruptible……and Moses only wrote it down based on that oral tradition.

        Since we know Jesus Christ validated Genesis, we know Genesis is from God and not from Man.

        It is my -personal- conclusion, that before Moses came, the accounts of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph was -mostly- unknown to the Israelites who have been slaves in Egypt for 400 years. God revealed the REAL story as in Deuteronomy 29:29 when he ordered Moses to WRITE in Exodus 17.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

        So para lang ma justify mo na walang oral tradition, you come up to your personal conclusion that the ancient Israelite have no knowledge about God and the patriarchs before Mose wrote it.

        Personal conclusion is also NON-BIBLICAL.

        Amazing!!!

      • GKLer

        I am saying the Bible doesn’t say anything about oral tradition. 

        What it -does say- is that God ordered Moses to WRITE.

        Which leads me to a -personal- conclusion which I shared. Which you are now going to ridicule all the way to the top of Mt. Everest right??? That’s your pattern.

        Yes it’s non-biblical. I placed it here so you will know the difference between fact found in the Bible, what is not found in the Bible and what is an opinion!

  • GKLer

    RENE:

    Rene:  The Hebrew Scriptures is NOT the Bible my friend. The Holy Bible is the book that I mentioned that is the product of the Catholic Church.

    Me:  You are wrong here.  See my reply 1-4.

    1.  Jesus quoted from the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old” Testament.  He validated them and you can find these quotes REPEATED in the Greek Testaments (aka “New” Testament). It should be noted that the Greek Testaments were originally written in Hebrew as well.

    2.  Read what Jesus said about the Law and the Prophets (aka. “Old” Testament)

    Matthew 5
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    3.  How can you say this is the product of the Catholic Church when the RCC did not write a single word ???????  That’s outright IP infringement!  LOL. You should also know that claiming you own the product which translated Hebrew to Latin or English is also IP infringement!. Are you admitting the RCC is guilty of IP theft?

    4.  You do not know your own Bible.  The Greek Testaments/Scriptures (“New” Testament) will not make any sense without the Hebrew Testaments/Scriptures (“Old” Testament). 

    Rene:  You said, “the bible came from God”. Is God the one writing it? The answer is NO!

    Me:  Did the human writer invent the words or did God tell him what to write down?????   So who is the TRUE AUTHOR of the BIBLE?  Man or God? Take note there are 2500 prophecies in the Bible. 2000 have come true.

    Rene:  What religion, organization or institution that proclaimed that the HUMAN AUTHORS of the books that comprises the Holy Bible are INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?  The answer is The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. 

    Me:  WRONG.  The RCC did not even exist yet when the last books of the Bible was written. 

    Mark covers the biblical events mainly from 29AD-33AD. It is believed Mark was completed in 60-65AD in Rome while Paul was imprisoned.  Luke covers the events from 3BC to 33AD. It was written likely in Caesarea and completed between 56-58AD -before- Acts was completed in 61AD (see Acts 1:1) while Luke was in Rome with Paul -after- he returned from Philippi with Paul at the end of the 3rd missionary journey -and while- Paul was waiting 2 years in prison at Caesarea.  John was likely written near or at Ephesus in 98AD. It covers “After prologue” and the period from 29-33AD. It is generally believed that John wrote his Gospel after his return from exile on Patmos. Emperor Nerva (96-98AD) recalled many who had been exiled during Emperor Domitian’s reign. John is believed to have died peacefully at Ephesus in the 3rd year of Emperor Trajan (100AD).  Matthew was completed circa 41AD. It covers what transpired from 2BC (~birth of Christ)  to 33AD. It was written in Hebrew, then later it was translated into Greek. It was written in Palestine, the exact year isn’t known, however – there is evidence in some manuscripts dating in the 10th century that point to 41AD.  Jerome (aka St. Jerome) in 380AD (Latin Vulgate Bible) translated the Bible into Latin from Hebrew OT and Greek NT.  Jerome stated that the Hebrew text of Matthew was preserved during his day (4th century).Here is an example that involved Paul: Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. IT SAYS “examined the Scriptures”. OBviously they read something that was written down. Just as Jesus did in the synagogues.

    Rene:   Is it clear to you now?
    Me:  YES, what is clear to me is that you don’t know your Bible at all.  …yet you go around posting scriptures here…

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYOKKWJDJKP6HLLGJ7TVFKQVPI Rene

      “The RCC did not exist yet when the last book of the bible is written?”

      What is your world reference? Please indicate. (World Reference such as Encyclopedias and World History books accepted and used by educational institutions worldwide such as colleges and universities. Don’t a give references which is only authored by your pastors and not internationally accepted. Understood?)

      And do not  insist that the Roman Catholic Church exist only when it was officially named The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the 4th century if you still want me to believe that I’m discussing with a sane person. I’ll give you a very elementary example; You as a person EXISTED even before you were registered and got a NAME.

      You are always citing ancient scriptures, codex, fragments but when you copy/paste your reference you always use the Chapters and the Verses of the Holy Bible which are the works of the Catholic Church. Sabi mo mayroon kang copy, i-post mo nga. Nahirapan ka na ngang intindihin tagalog mong bibliya, hebrew scriptures at mga codex-codex at fragment pa? Kaya fragmented ang comprehension mo.

      Easier said than done?

      • GKLer

        You keep asking me questions, but you don’t answer mine??!?!?.

        You need to answer my questions ABOVE and these below.

        Q. How many books are there in the Bible?
        A. ??

        Q. Which of the Biblical books did the Catholic Church write/author/produce/translate/publish?
        A. ???

        Q. You are now back to codex, etc… so let me ask you: Did the Catholic Church produce/write/author the Ben Asher Manuscripts?
        A. ??

        Q. Did the Catholic Church produce/write/author the Dead Sea Scrolls?
        A. ???

        Q. Which sources did Gerome use to translate and create the Latin Vulgate Bible?
        A. ???

        Quit claiming what is not the RCC’s.
        If the “bible” belonged to anyone…it first belonged to the Jewish people/Israelites whom God chose…and MOSES wrote down the first book called Genesis as ordered by God in Exodus 17

  • GKLer

    J1u2a3n:

    J1u2a3n:  And still no proof that the Bible should be sole basis. You’ve quoted verses that didn’t prove your argument of the Bible being the ONLY basis. Such a waste of time.

    Me:  You need to answer my questions.  Is the Bible from God – yes or no?  There are 2500 prophecies in the Bible, 2000 have come true so far.  If you say no then goodbye.  Since you are still here I am assuming you believe “Yes”.   Then the Bible is clearly an Authority.  Anything else is written by Man correct??  So is salvation from God or Man?     Is it the RCC that gives eternal life???   Be sure to also read this:

    Matthew 5 (Jesus speaks here)
    17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    J1u2a3n:  Okay, now I’ll help you out. Whoever wrote the books of the Bible were clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

    Me:  Agreed

    Exodus 17:14
    Then the LORD said to Moses, “WRITE this on a scroll as something to be remembered……

    John 5:46
    “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he WROTE about me.” ..

    J1u2a3n:  Who were responsible for compiling them? The early Christians. The Bible didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

    Me:  No, that is not correct.  It was compiled even before Jesus Christ arrived – by the Jewish people.  The Dead Sea Scroll are dated 400 BC (way before Christ arrived), it contains almost every book of the Hebrew Testament.   Here, what do you think Jesus was reading from:

    Luke 4:16-21
    16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read,17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,  because he has anointed me  to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners  and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,19   to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[a]20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

    J1u2a3n:  The Supreme Authority on matters of faith is the Church through the apostolic succession.  Under whose authority? Jesus Christ himself.

    Me:  No.  The SUPREME AUTHORITY is always God.  The RCC is “an authority”.

    Romans 13:1 
    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

     J1u2a3n:  You love quoting Paul, but clearly you’ve overlooked the fact that he puts importance to tradition together with the scriptures. not the scriotures alone. Your last question is ignorant at best. 

    Me:  You are out of context here.  Read this:

    Colossians 2:8
    See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world RATHER than on Christ

     J1u2a3n: You mean everyone heard everything what Jesus and the disciple said? No. Just not possible. So everything that Jesus said and did that wasn’t recorded were not from God? Please read John 21:25.

    Me:  I don’t understand where you are going with this. But Yes,  It’s true not everything Jesus did from birth to his death in 33AD is written down.  (John 21:25)  However, once again, answer this:

    If a person wrote a book (way after Christ left Earth).  500 years later he is declared a “saint” by the RCC. Then his book becomes part of the RCC Doctrines….  

    Q.  IF WHAT HE TEACHES in his book doesn’t agree with what GOD OR CHRIST TEACHES, what now???
    A.  ???? Your answer ????

     J1u2a3n:  Since you love copying and pasting, try reading or watching arguments in sola scriptura. Sola scriptura, you’ll notice, is a losing argument. I’ll leave you and your religion (which is among hundreds of thousands of denomination because people can interpret the Bible by themselves) alone; leave us Catholics alone. Bye. 

    Me:  I will leave you alone.  Don’t speak for the others.  Many of us came from Catholic strongholds like the Philippines who have come to learn about God and Christ from the Bible.

    John 17:3
    3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17
    16 ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work.

    The Bible has 2500 prophecies, 2000 have come true so far, some in the last 100 years…

    Deuteronomy 18:21-22
    21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

    Then once more be sure read what Jesus said in….. Matthew 5:17-20

    There’s your proof that the Bible alone is enough.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

advertisement

popular

advertisement

videos