Discussion: Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the only true Christian church?

You are wrong on many points. The bible itself proves this as well as secular history. the Catholic church did not exist during the first century.

1. When the bible was fianlly cannonized was not when it was written or inspired. That is when man put his rubber stamp on it. The scriptures DID Exist LONG before the Catholic church, make no mistake about that.
2. You are right that Christ did ordain all Christians as THE CHurch, but never is it mentioned that this is "Catholic" The term does not appear in the original manuscripts, indeed the only terms used are "church", "body" and Christians.
I invite you to find where in scripture the catholic church is "ordained" as the one true church by Christ.
3.

Again read your bible, Christians were converted JEWS. They were first called Christians at Antioch, before that they were still considered Jews. Peter wrestled with this when he was sent to preach to Corneilus the centurian ( ACTS 10:20-22 ) who was a gentile. Gentile being the common term used by Jews to describe others outside of Judaism. I'll paraphrase the story for you.

Peter was aprehensive about preaching the gospel to those who were not Jewish. Peter and the early church, except for Paul, still believed that Christ came to save only Jews. Then the Lord caused Peter to have a dream in which he was to eat all manner of unclean meats, symbolizing Peter was no longer bound to the old Mosiac law. He was then ordered to go to Cornelius who was NOT Jewish but observed and studied scripture, and reveal to him the truth. He did and the man and his whole family were "added" to the Lord's church. The point is that Peter was Jewish and this man was not. these two people were clearly CHRISTIANS after this, not Catholics.

Peter makes no mention of him being called "Pope". This was a term assigned to him long after his death by the Catholic church, basically to convince Catholics of the infallicy of the Pope. The Pope is a man, he is nothing more. A very devout man but still a man, who sins just like the rest of us.

4. What you say about no salvation outside the church is correct, the problem is your definition of the "church" is way off, I know I was Catholic for 25 years, went to Redemtrist in Crowley. Read and decide for yourself don't just blindly follow what they tell you.

The definition of THE CHURCH as it is written in the Bible:

Paul's letter to:
Ephesians 1:22-24
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Christ is the head of the church and the church is his body. The church is not an organization or a building, all those that THINK this are sadly mistaken.
The Church is THE congregation of it's Saints.... it's members. You ARE the church. think about it.

 

Not to nitpick but Benny XVI was one of 3 Cardinals not appointed by JPII. To your point, it is not the mission of the Church to have good attendance or make money. The Church's mission is to save souls by teaching truth. If society is alienated by the truth that is society's failing not the Church's. Moral truth is absolute. It does not change with the times. Our Church teaches contraception is sinful. It has always taught this since the first days of the Church. See the Didache a first Century work of Christian moral teaching. It must always teach this. Christ promissed a Church that would never teach error. To change a matter of morals is to change truth. Once that starts happening Pandoras box is open.

About the homo sexual side of the question...
to quote the Cathechism

Paragraph 2357 ... Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be respected with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians to unite to the sacrafice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they encounter from their condition."

2359 Homsexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by support of disintrested friendship, by prayer, and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christain perfection.
end quote of Cathechism.

I think that justifies my position and that of Benny XVI.

 

Yes it did. The Catholic Church was foudned by Christ when He commissioned Simon as Peter the rock. The fact that the name did not exist for hundred of years does not change the fact the Church always taught and acted as it does now with the Bishop of Rome or Pope as its head.

The majority of the new testament was written to a specific audience for a specific purpose. It is not a chatechim or a tool to convert non-believers. It is for those whoe already beleive. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ in 33 AD. The books of the New Testament were not written between 50-109 AD. Which existed first?

The first Christians were Catholic. They did not carry the name Catholic. But in form and substance of what they beleived was Catholic. They "broke the bread" which we call mass. They practiced the seven sacraments. They beleived in the inafalibility of the Bishop of Rome. They beleived everything the modern church teaches. I know this because there is an unbroken line of Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI. I can quote the fathers of the Church if you want for any Catholic doctrine that you don't see in the Bible. Remember Early Christians did not have a Bible as we know it, so they especially relied on the oral Tradition that only the Catholic Church has maintained.

Again he doesn't use the name Pope, but he is clearly the leader of the Church on Earth. The fact word Pope in the Bible means very little. The word Trinity isn't anywhere in the Bible. The essence of it is there, and the same is true of the Papacy. Again the early Christians were Catholic.

I agree with this defintion completely. I don't think anything I said disputes this.

 

There are many other religions that take the Lord's supper. Your argument here doesn't hold water, or wine.

And your argument that Peter was the first Pope and the first Christians were Catholic but didn't know it is an argument? Because they praciticed the Catholic doctrine as Catholics do now, they just weren't aware of it. ?????

WRONG. How many instances of Catholic doctrine did the early church practice? which ones can you name?
Does the Pope have powers that were given to the Apostles in the early Church? Where is the susbstance "Holy Water" in the early Christian church? Isn't this a hold over from the Old testament? Please point out an example of infant baptism and a instance where Holy water is used in the new testament. I'd like to see it.

the Christmas Holiday was "scheduled" by the Catholic church. Why was it set in December? look it up. it was not when Christ was born. there would not have been flocks in the field in December in Judea.

The holiday was scheduled because it coincided with a popular PAGAN holiday. it was done to entice the PAGANS to celebrate CHRIST instead of their Gods. Simply put the Catholic church scheduled it then because there was a party going on anyway. Then they said Christ was born then. Unlikely he was born then.
Further more the early Christians did NOT celebrate Christmas, they were aware of Christ's miracle birth but otherwise they celebrated his RESURECTION and ACSENSION, not birth.
the early Church was an evangilistic church, not a organization concerned with an infallible leader. They had one already, Christ.

Tell me how the Spainish inquisition had the same doctrinal basis as the early Christian church? Did Paul FORCE the jailer to be baptized? No he did it right away. voluntarily. That's another thing, why did these people who were added to the church feel the need to be baptized straight way? I mean couldn't it wait till morning? Couldn't the ethopian Eunuch wait for some clean water? Why do Catholics "schedule" baptisms, if it's so important why not do it immideiately?

Baptism. the catholic church does not believe in immersion. The early church absolutely did. ACTS Cpter 8 Ethopian Eunuch
That's one doctrinal difference.
I would also like for you to find ONE just ONE example of infant baptism in the bible.

the Last Supper. For years the Catholic church did not offer the "fruit of the vine" to it's congregation during the Lord's supper, only the unleavened bread. WHY?
Clearly the scripture allows for Christians to commemorate the Lord's body AND Blood not just his body. Even now it is offered as an OPTION. this is not as it was intended.

The Lord's supper is a sign or memorial of Christ already come, who by dying delivered us; his death is in special manner set before us in that ordinance, by which we are reminded of it. The breaking of Christ's body as a sacrifice for us, is therein brought to our remembrance by the breaking of bread. Nothing can be more nourishing and satisfying to the soul, than the doctrine of Christ's making atonement for sin, and the assurance of an interest in that atonement. Therefore we do this in rememberance of what He did for us, when he died for us; and for a memorial of what we do, in joining ourselves to him in an everlasting covenant. The shedding of Christ's blood, by which the atonement was made, is represented by the wine in the cup. (Lu 22:19-20)

19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It's not like a car option add on. I'll take the bread this week and lay off the wine. it's all or nothing, either you commemorate His death and ressurection or you don't. The catholic church and it's leaders dont make decisions based on convience of whether my soul should partake of the full Lord's supper or not. it's not up to them. The bible ( Jesus ) said "Do this in remembrance of me". Who are they to change this?

So unless you can prove this wrong, the Catholic doctrine may indeed be Christian BUT it doesn't resemble exactly the early church doctrine. Why is that?

Please don't come back with that bunk about they were Catholics, they just didn't know it. I've outlined many differences in the doctrine of the early church and catholism.

Also I don't need nor does any Christian need the word "trinity" to be a Christian. It doesn't appear in the bible because it isn't necessary. It's a catholic term. Jesus is the son of God and the Holy spirit exxists, Trinity is a descriptive word used in catholic doctrine to describe this relationship. it may not be wrong, but it certainly doesn't have to exist to be saved. The word could have nver been used and Christians would still be Christians. It's similar to saying my grand pappy and I are related. What's with all these "special" non biblical Catholic words???? Get yourself a copy of the the Bible and read it, skip all the Preist's rhetoric and do some investigating on your own.

Please point out some sort of proof that Peter was the first pope. Just because the Lord said he was the rock he would build the church on doesn't mean he meant Catholic. I don't see where that appears in ANY version of the scriptures. And the scriptures were written BEFORE the word CATHOLIC existed. This is not arguable, it's fact, look it up in secular history. There were no Pope's before Constantine. Catholism started in ROME not Judea.

 

If you look at the verse where Jesus says "on this rock i will build My church" in context you will see that Jesus wasn't saying Peter was the rock the church would be built upon, rather it was the belief and teaching that Jesus was the living Son of God, the Christ.

I will comment on this later but I just got back from the Alter Bridge concert and I need to get some sleep as i'm about to pass out from exhaustion.

 

the catholic church was NOT founded then. Prove that please.

Also the new testament is loaded with evangilistic converisons and commisions to spread the gospel. You are aware of the great commision in Mark right? and you do know of the book of Acts, the one loaded with conversions and advice on conversions? You are aware of the book of Timothy were Paul exhorts Timothy to study to set a Christian example? You have read the letter of Paul to hebrews and Romans? you know the one where he tries to convert King Agrippa? So what was that you were saying about the new testament NOt being a tool to convert non believers? I wouldnt exactly use the word tool myself, Id use the word that it is..... a testament.

I see your problem, you attend mass but never read the bible, or History......therefore you believe whatever they feed you. Just think if you'd have gone to Guyana with Jim Jones with your attitude and gullibility you'd be dead now. Kind of makes you think doesn't it? I'm not trying to bash your faith or convert you, but you are following blind friend. do what Paul told Timothy to do, study to show thyself approved. Who knows you might learn something. I will tell you this, you'll find out alot of things the catholic church isn't telling you. Kind of like those poor Spanish folks they forced errr ummm converted during the Inquisition. Believe or die? I dont see anything in the Book about forced conversions. good day.

 

This an OLD evangelical argument but has no basis in fact.

To quote Karl Keating

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Peter the Rock



Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.


Look at the scene



Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.


Promises to Peter



When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.


Who is the rock?



Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.


Another alternative



The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.


Look at the Aramaic



Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

 

That is a completely wrong assessment. I love the Bible and read it closely. The difference is my interpretation is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. I do not follow blindly.

on infant Baptisim. That one is easy. It is clearly Biblical
Were Only Adults Baptized?



Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.


Specific Biblical References?



But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

 

for the non-Catholics here, her is the creed said during Mass by Catholics regarding our faith and beliefs (sorta in a nutshell so to say). one thing in the creed that other religions disagree with is the Catholic's belief of an apostolic church, and our prayers to Mary and the Apostles (I will let Supa Fan handle why we pray to these people).

Nicean Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, make of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father, Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Then, I have an interesting read for those curious about the thoughts of our new Pope.

Google DOMINUS IESUS and read thru it. It was written in 2000 by Benedict XVI...notice his thoughts on many topics we have discussed here.

Enjoy....and peace be with you all!