It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vatican exposures: Catholic ATS members? What say you?

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

neno,

You can look at the first "scandal" Judas was with Our Lord for three
years and look what he did. If your example is true, fine, proof again
humanity has a fallen nature. Remember Cromwell and the English
persecution of Catholics in England and in Ireland. The number is millions
of Irish killed and starved plus English Catholics were killed too.


Beyond a doubt there was a violent reaction to the excesses of the Inquisition. I do not deny that, but one cannot excuse one atrocity by pointing to another.



The faith is still the true faith, man is the sinner.


I cannot and do not deny that "the faith" is the "true faith" - I simply deny, vehemently, that Roman Catholicism is the faith. Catholics who make it to Heaven will be surprised at seeing Protestants there, I have no doubt.

I don't think God will let them kill each other off in the Second Death.

Being Saved is not a function of which denomination one subscribes to. People from all of them will be found in heaven. People from all of them will be absent as well.

Like Priests who fiddle with little boys.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

neno,

Your response is classic Protestantism. Jesus didn't establish Protestantism so their definition of the Church is just what you stated but, do I ever agree disunity and denomination are from man not God.



Nor did he establish Catholicism. It is just another denomination, established to serve the needs of the Roman Empire. Jesus established the Church, the Faith. He applied no modifiers like "Roman Catholicism". That is to be found nowhere in the Bible. It is a pronouncement of fallible mortals.



The line about Constantine, nah, true history says something different.take care,


colbe


What does your "true" history say in the matter, and where does it come from? What is it's origin?

History in general records that the Roman Catholic Church was established by Constantine. "In hoc signo vinces".



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

One sentence protests or a library of books written do not matter. We can know, there is one faith. Come to the faith instead, the Remnant
is Roman Catholic neno.



Because you say so?

"Thou sayest."

Both of those "one sentence protests" are straight out of the Bible. Where is yours from?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



I am not going to bother with you're anti-Catholic links, they're not true.

colbe, your blindness and ignorance, and your dedication to them, are truly staggering. You expect others to read your silly channelers and to believe that your priests alone know the truth of the Bible, and accept them, but you refuse to look at any one else's attempts to DENY IGNORANCE.

You'll get what you deserve. Wait and see. Utter fail in growth, man. Utter fail. Next time around maybe you'll be on the other end, trying to educate a soul who wandered into the heretical abyss of Roman charades, and enlighten them....saying "Over here! Here's the fire escape! Here's the exit!!"

Yeah. Good luck with your trip. Don't bother to write.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
...
Classic denial of the truth. Read history and you'll cease to be whatever
belief you accept at present. Where is the 'reverence' in rejecting
most of Our Lord's revelation in the Gospel? What happened, your
comments are so snotty but this is the intention of thread.

Promise me cloudyday, if God shows you the true faith is Roman Catholicism, that you accept His enlightenment and then you will become Catholic? Same for everyone else here....I wish.


If God shows me that I need to be a Catholic, then hopefully that's what I will do. I was Eastern Orthodox from 2009 to 2011, so I think I understand some of the Catholic attitudes from that brief experience.

I really think it is wrong for a denomination to tell their members that they cannot participate in communion with a different denomination. It turns one of the most important Christian rituals into something more like the American Pledge of Allegiance. My Orthodox priest told me that communion outside the Orthodox church was not actually the body and blood of Jesus. I don't know if that priest was stating his own opinion or the accepted view of the Orthodox church. I don't know if that's what Catholics think or not.

Once you refuse to join in communion with other denominations - no matter how artfully you justify this policy - you send a subliminal message of division. Most of Jesus activities were about bringing outsiders back into the community such as lepers, adulterers, tax collectors, etc.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Eric,

Jesus used the word "Church" singular in giving Peter, the first Pope the keys of authority. Recall, like David in the Old Covenant.

Roman Catholicism was referred early on the Church. St. Ignatius, third
Bishop of Antioch first called to the Church Catholic. He is an Apostolic Father.


Ok, thanks for the feedback.

So that we are working under the same definitions and can move this discussion forward, please give me a few examples of things that the Church has specifically done (positive or negative), so I can get a feel for what you mean by the 'Church'.

For example, did the Church build something, did the Church fund something, did the Church declare something (outside the Papacy or the Magesterium).

Unfortunately, if when you say 'the Church' you mean the huge megalithic entity that is comprised of every believer, than it is hard to say the Church ever did anything. If, on the other hand, you are referring to duly authorized representatives, than the Church has done many things, both good and bad.

Like you (I assume), I believe that the Church is comprised of sinners and those sinners have indeed engaged in some heinous acts in the past, just as Peter denied Christ.

Eric
edit on 23-3-2012 by EricD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by colbe

neno,

Your response is classic Protestantism. Jesus didn't establish Protestantism so their definition of the Church is just what you stated but, do I ever agree disunity and denomination are from man not God.



Nor did he establish Catholicism. It is just another denomination, established to serve the needs of the Roman Empire. Jesus established the Church, the Faith. He applied no modifiers like "Roman Catholicism". That is to be found nowhere in the Bible. It is a pronouncement of fallible mortals.



The line about Constantine, nah, true history says something different.take care,


colbe


What does your "true" history say in the matter, and where does it come from? What is it's origin?

History in general records that the Roman Catholic Church was established by Constantine. "In hoc signo vinces".




neno,

No offense but there is more to 2000 years of Christian history than
history recording one sentence. It's the "Constantine" sentence, non-Catholic's response to say the Church isn't Catholic.

The Bible Protestants request chapter and verse from is a Catholic
book. The Church assembled the Bible.


How the Canon of the Bible (the official catalogue of inspired books) was officially declared.

All books that were considered for the Cannon, but not included were called Apocrypha, and thus declared not inspired.

362 A.D. Catholic Church's Council of Rome defines the Canon of Holy Scripture.
382 Pope Damasus issues a listing of the present OT and NT Canon of 73 books
383 Saint Jerome translates the Latin Vulgate from Greek & Hebrew
393 Council of Hippo (North Africa) approves the present Canon of 73 books
397 Council of Constantinople produces first bound Bible (the Vulgate: previously, all
were separate books)
397 Council of Carthage (North Africa) approves the same OT and NT canon
405 Pope Saint Innocent I approves the Canon again and closes it (with 73 books)


take care,


colbe



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by colbe

Eric,

Jesus used the word "Church" singular in giving Peter, the first Pope the keys of authority. Recall, like David in the Old Covenant.

Roman Catholicism was referred early on the Church. St. Ignatius, third
Bishop of Antioch first called to the Church Catholic. He is an Apostolic Father.


Ok, thanks for the feedback.

So that we are working under the same definitions and can move this discussion forward, please give me a few examples of things that the Church has specifically done (positive or negative), so I can get a feel for what you mean by the 'Church'.

For example, did the Church build something, did the Church fund something, did the Church declare something (outside the Papacy or the Magesterium).

Unfortunately, if when you say 'the Church' you mean the huge megalithic entity that is comprised of every believer, than it is hard to say the Church ever did anything. If, on the other hand, you are referring to duly authorized representatives, than the Church has done many things, both good and bad.

Like you (I assume), I believe that the Church is comprised of sinners and those sinners have indeed engaged in some heinous acts in the past, just as Peter denied Christ.

Eric
edit on 23-3-2012 by EricD because: (no reason given)


Hi Eric,

When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church. Peter also was the only one of the Apostles who proclaimed "You are the Christ" to Our Lord. Jesus named Peter, leader of the Apostles, the head of His
Church. A third, Peter repented of denying Our Lord. Everyone who
is afraid or haven't confessed their sins in a long time should remember what Peter did. It is a help. It showed Peter's great love and humility and something Judas didn't do.


colbe



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Catholics always seem to fondle kids! some probably like to just dress-up while they're doing it...

I am glad my founding fathers got us away form the Catholic Church, I do not even know how much Christians are supporting them anymore? instead we are giving our support directly to Israel.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

neno,

No offense but there is more to 2000 years of Christian history than history recording one sentence. It's the "Constantine" sentence, non-Catholic's response to say the Church isn't Catholic.


History is written in sentences, that is one of them. I suppose whether or not I think the Roman catholic Church is "catholic" really depends on what you mean by "Catholic" - Constantine established THE Roman Catholic Church, 300 years or so AFTER Christ. If by "catholic" you mean world wide, then yes, there are Roman Catholics all over the world. IF, however, by "catholic" you mean all encompassing, that is just not so of the Roman Catholic Church.

If, by "catholic" you mean the only way, then that consigns all Christians who went before Constantine to hell, and places your church above Jesus, who IS the Way, according to the Christian scripture.

Jesus never walked in Rome. He established His Church in what is now Israel. Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church, which at the time was one of many Christian Congregations. Oddly, perhaps, it is but one of many even to this day.



The Bible Protestants request chapter and verse from is a Catholic book. The Church assembled the Bible.


Not mine. The Roman Catholic Church instead burned copies of it when they could find them, and slaughtered those who dared to read it.



How the Canon of the Bible (the official catalogue of inspired books) was officially declared.

All books that were considered for the Cannon, but not included were called Apocrypha, and thus declared not inspired.

362 A.D. Catholic Church's Council of Rome defines the Canon of Holy Scripture.
382 Pope Damasus issues a listing of the present OT and NT Canon of 73 books
383 Saint Jerome translates the Latin Vulgate from Greek & Hebrew
393 Council of Hippo (North Africa) approves the present Canon of 73 books
397 Council of Constantinople produces first bound Bible (the Vulgate: previously, all
were separate books)
397 Council of Carthage (North Africa) approves the same OT and NT canon
405 Pope Saint Innocent I approves the Canon again and closes it (with 73 books)


take care,


colbe


Your history of the Bible as given here BEGINS in 362 AD. It's not just long after Christ, it's also, significantly, after Constantine took the throne and established his version of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church.

The Bible has a much longer history than that, which involves neither Constantine nor the Roman Catholic Church.



edit on 2012/3/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Hi Eric,

When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church.
colbe


Ok, great. Thanks.

That being the case, I believe that this specific debate is for naught. You wouldn't argue that members of the Church committed acts that were heinous, correct?

So, it's just a question of defining terms. Would you agree?

Thanks,

Eric



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by colbe

Hi Eric,

When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church.
colbe


Ok, great. Thanks.

That being the case, I believe that this specific debate is for naught. You wouldn't argue that members of the Church committed acts that were heinous, correct?

So, it's just a question of defining terms. Would you agree?

Thanks,

Eric


I've been scratching my head since yesterday trying to understand what this post means and what you two are discussing. The religious forum is by far the craziest on ATS in my opinion. (Not that I'm saying there is anything crazy about your post; I obviously missed something somewhere. )

edit on 24-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by colbe

Hi Eric,

When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church.
colbe


Ok, great. Thanks.

That being the case, I believe that this specific debate is for naught. You wouldn't argue that members of the Church committed acts that were heinous, correct?

So, it's just a question of defining terms. Would you agree?

Thanks,

Eric


I've been scratching my head since yesterday trying to understand what this post means and what you two are discussing. The religious forum is by far the craziest on ATS in my opinion. (Not that I'm saying there is anything crazy about your post; I obviously missed something somewhere. )

edit on 24-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


No problem.

Colbe has (I'm paraphrasing) stated that the Church has not committed mass killings or other atrocities. I wasn't sure how that was possible, so I asked what Colbe meant by 'the Church'. Colbe believes that 'the Church' is the teachings of the Church.

That being the case, from Colbe's perspective he/she is 100% correct. The official teachings of the Church didn't commit any atrocities. Of course, that begs the question of what is an official teaching and what isn't.

From most (I presume) peoples perspective, the Church includes the people that are members, especially those in the hierarchy. From their perspective, the Church certainly was involved (see the earlier mention of Torquemada).

I hope that once we define terms so that everyone is discussing the same thing, most disagreements fade away.

Eric



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 


Like you said if we define "the Church" to mean the teaching of the Catholic Church then there isn't much to discuss. How about if we agree that "the Church" or "the Catholic Church" means "the Catholic Church including everything except the lay people and the actions of the lay people"? So we would include actions, teachings, traditions, laws, policies, finances, clergy, and the bad behavior of the clergy when that bad behavior came to someone's attention and was allowed to happen again.

So non-Catholics with a broader view of "the Church" need to use some other term like "all Christians" to avoid confusion. And anybody who wants to speak about the teachings of the Catholic Church or anything narrower should also use a different term.
edit on 24-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
reply to post by EricD
 


Like you said if we define "the Church" to mean the teaching of the Catholic Church then there isn't much to discuss. How about if we agree that "the Church" or "the Catholic Church" means "the Catholic Church including everything except the lay people and the actions of the lay people"? So we would include actions, teachings, traditions, laws, policies, finances, clergy, and the bad behavior of the clergy when that bad behavior came to someone's attention and was allowed to happen again.
So non-Catholics with a broader view of "the Church" need to use some other term like "all Christians" to avoid confusion. And anybody who wants to speak about the teachings of the Catholic Church or anything narrower should also use a different term.
edit on 24-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


There is one Church, the RCC.

I said when I reply often I am talking about the teachings of the Church.

It's both, the Church are/were the people of God who follow the Church, all her teachings. Non-Catholic Christians do not have a "broader view", they have rejected Church teaching and accept new teachings of men not God. What they do accept of God came from the Church, the RCC. They accept the Bible, the Bible is a Catholic book. And they accept a few things "outside of Scripture", the oral tradition but fail to see the fact.

The pinnacle of Roman Catholic belief is the Holy Eucharist. The block, non-Catholic Christians have rejected the "grace" of God given through the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. They have no ministerial priesthood. They have no way to "confect" the Eucharist so now call it only a symbol. Not true.

How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.

They must come home, it will happen, pray everyone does, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when the Great Warning happens.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
...
There is one Church, the RCC.

I said when I reply often I am talking about the teachings of the Church.

It's both, the Church are/were the people of God who follow the Church, all her teachings. Non-Catholic Christians do not have a "broader view", they have rejected Church teaching and accept new teachings of men not God. What they do accept of God came from the Church, the RCC. They accept the Bible, the Bible is a Catholic book. And they accept a few things "outside of Scripture", the oral tradition but fail to see the fact.

The pinnacle of Roman Catholic belief is the Holy Eucharist. The block, non-Catholic Christians have rejected the "grace" of God given through the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. They have no ministerial priesthood. They have no way to "confect" the Eucharist so now call it only a symbol. Not true.

How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.

They must come home, it will happen, pray everyone does, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when the Great Warning happens.


My problem with this viewpoint is that I don't see any difference between Catholics and non-Catholics. If we lined up a group of Americans and were allowed to question them about any facet their life except for religion, it would be hard to distinguish a devout Baptist from a devout Catholic from a devout Muslim from a devout New Ager. Maybe someone has attempted this as an experiment and published the results. I would be curious.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

There is one Church, the RCC.



I'm going to need a scriptural reference to back up the contention that the Roman Catholic Church is "the One Church". Chapter and verse, please - or do Cathiloics ignore the Bible in favor of dogma?



I said when I reply often I am talking about the teachings of the Church.


Teachings are teaching. A "church" is a body of believers - or supposed believers.



Non-Catholic Christians do not have a "broader view", they have rejected Church teaching and accept new teachings of men not God.


I contend the precise opposite - that by accepting church dogma, Catholics are accepting teachings of men in contravention to the teachings of God.



What they do accept of God came from the Church, the RCC. They accept the Bible, the Bible is a Catholic book.


No. The bible was in existence long before the Catholic Church. You may mean the "Canon", but even that differs between Protestants and Catholics. The Bible itself predates the Roman Catholic Church.



And they accept a few things "outside of Scripture", the oral tradition but fail to see the fact.


I'm not sure which "oral traditions" you are thinking that Protestants accept, or how you mean that they "accept" them. "Accept" them as what?



The pinnacle of Roman Catholic belief is the Holy Eucharist. The block, non-Catholic Christians have rejected the "grace" of God given through the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. They have no ministerial priesthood. They have no way to "confect" the Eucharist so now call it only a symbol. Not true.


Protestant accept the Grace of God from Christ, and reject the notion that priests are able to deliver what they do not own. They reject a necessity for intermediaries between themselves and God other than Christ.



How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood?


On a biblical basis, Protestants in general reject the necessity of any priesthood other than the Priesthood of the Believer. An external "priesthood" places an intermediary between the believer and the Christ, forbidden in Corinthians.



And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.


Because the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, church "dogma", are the teachings of men, and are largely unsupported by the Bible. Otherwise, there would be no need to specify and differentiate between Biblical teachings and "Church teachings" or "Church traditions". Again, the Bible is not "the (Roman Catholic) Church's book. It predates Roman Catholicism.

Now you may rest easy, as those questions have been answered.




They must come home, it will happen, pray everyone does, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when the Great Warning happens.


I WILL go home. It just so happens that Roman Catholicism is NOT my "home".




edit on 2012/3/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.


I believe that most Protestants believe that Catholicism started after Constantine made Christianity an 'approved' religion, while you and I believe that Catholicism started with Christ and was stewarded by Peter and the Popes that followed him.

As we know that the Bible existed before Constantine, in their belief, the Bible is not a Catholic book.

They also don't believe in the Apostolic Succession that allows for Catholic priests to claim a lineage back to the Apostles for the same reason. They don't believe that the Catholic Church existed prior to the mid 300's.

Clearly, you, I and other Catholics disagree with them.

Eric



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 


We also don't believe that Peter was a "Pope", or that a pope has any more authority over believers than, for instance, a stock clerk down at you local grocery store.

Most Protestants don't believe in Transubstantiation, although I'm sure there may be some who do. In matters of Eschatology, there are probably as many variations as there are people to vary them. I mention that because of the insistence on "returning home" on the pronouncement of a channeler's rants of vague, nebulous future events. I have to wonder if Saul would have fallen for a channeler, too. Perhaps only if the channeler or medium or whatever it is were from Endor.

Some of the more entertaining Protestants believe that the King James Bible is the "original bible". I've had a lot of fun out of them over the years.

A fairly widespread belief is that there is only one way to salvation, and that way is not denomination dependent, it is Christ dependent. They believe that Christ is more important to your salvation than the church you go to. To be sure, they will fight like cats and dogs over doctrinal differences, but most realize that they ARE only doctrinal differences, not a bar to eternity. I have yet to hear a Baptist preach a Presbyterian into hell over doctrinal differences, and that goes for the rest of them as well.

Most will also "shop around" for a church to settle into, until they find one that makes sense doctrinally to them, one that they can be comfortable with in it's application of doctrine to their understanding. They have a notion that God should make sense most of the time, and will look until they find doctrine that makes sense given their understanding of what is written in the Bible.

That's how I became a Calvinist - it just makes more sense from a logical standpoint than anything else I have encountered. That doesn't mean that I think one has to be a Calvinist to get to Heaven, though. Doctrine and dogma will NEVER provide salvation, That is not their function. Salvation comes from Christ, not ideas, and just because someone has different ideas from me doesn't automatically mean they have to be without Christ - it just means they understand him differently.

Doctrine is a framework to relate to one another, not a road map to Heaven. No one will ever get to heaven on a doctrinal technicality, nor will they be barred by one. There are no loopholes in the contract.

The "Constantine" thing is because colbe specifies ROMAN Catholicism as they only avenue to heaven. Eastern Orthodox and Byzantines and the like are entirely left out in the cold, and Protestants are "heretics" to colbe, which one would think is an automatic ticket to Hell. Constantine established the ROMAN Catholic Church. He did not found the congregation in Rome, nor did he merely "approve" it. He took the Roman congregation which already existed, and rather than merely "approving" it, he PROMOTED it to a State Religion of the Roman Empire. Thus, Constantine "Established" the Roman Catholic Church, but neither Christianity nor the "Catholic" Church.

"Roman Catholic", "Catholic", and "Christian" are not synonymous nor exclusive.






edit on 2012/3/25 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by colbe

How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.


I believe that most Protestants believe that Catholicism started after Constantine made Christianity an 'approved' religion, while you and I believe that Catholicism started with Christ and was stewarded by Peter and the Popes that followed him.

As we know that the Bible existed before Constantine, in their belief, the Bible is not a Catholic book.

They also don't believe in the Apostolic Succession that allows for Catholic priests to claim a lineage back to the Apostles for the same reason. They don't believe that the Catholic Church existed prior to the mid 300's.

Clearly, you, I and other Catholics disagree with them.

Eric


Well said Eric, much better than I could say.

There aren't enough "characters left" to reply to neno (hi). I wish, please everyone, do not take a post apart sentence by sentence and then write a paragraph or more after each. And you can't see the other person's writing in full, it loses it's meaning.

Keep a person's post together and underline if you want to emphasize is my suggestion.

If you believe prophecy you know God isn't silent. God is going to and actually is in the process of removing all sin from the earth. The new time is coming, the 7th Day.

I keep sharing, the Remnant is Roman Catholic. Non-Catholic prophetic gently hints at the fact every day now. It is difficult to change I realize but the Holy Eucharist is true. Decide, say to yourself, I want it, I'll become Catholic to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist. It is the pinnacle of the faith. If you're worried about human respect, making the change, who cares. Your desire should be to please God first.

Excerpt,(a translation) from a message to a Brazilian seer, Darly Chagas:

January 19, 2012

...Pray for the atheists and pagans, if your hands are still empty, begin praying for these poor children who still insist on not loving God, your prayers bear fruit, pray for them all.

Pray for the Holy Church founded by Jesus Christ, this is the time, the year that God will unite all peoples into one Church, the one, that Jesus Christ founded, which is represented by the person of the Holy Father the Pope. Whether the world like it or not, this is the one who will prevail because Jesus Christ so determined it....


refer to the March 19th list of messages at ~

www.Catholicbinder.com...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join