January 9th, 2011
01:57 PM ET

Father Cutie: On leaving the church

Father Alberto Cutie talks to CNN Espanol's Ismael Cala about leaving the Catholic Church, his new life as an Episcopal priest, and more.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity • Episcopal

soundoff (89 Responses)
  1. SamSham1

    Cutie is anti-Catholic and is offensive to all Catholics how could HSN hire this Charlitan? He knows better than anyone!

    January 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  2. Joyce Milton

    When I asked ‘why should babies be excluded’…you said that I never showed you any verse or scripture where baby baptism is in the Bible. So you don’t think the verses I gave you are in the Bible? That is where I found them. Then you suggest I read my bible…I do read my Bible and it is clear to me that baby baptism is not excluded. You offered nothing for your stance on Baptism of babies except to denounce it.

    Comment by Joyce: What exactly do you want me to present? I gave you the website that listed anything I would have given you. If you find conflict with that, and it goes against what you believe, what can I say? You will believe what your indoctrinated to believe no matter what.
    That clearly says, what it says.
    ‘Mark 16:15,16 – All who are baptized, must first have the gospel preached to them. But what good would be done by preaching to a baby?

    This is what Mark 16:15,16 says: 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’ So you believe that if whole households are preached the gospel and whole households are baptized that babies are excluded because they do not believe thus are condemned. That is beyond ridiculous!
    Comment by Joyce: No, I certainly do not believe that, please don't twist things. As I originally stated, babys are not included in that verse, because they are without the ability to reason, thus they cannot sin! They are INNOCENT, and Jesus did not mean they would be condemned. Whole households were baptised, meaning those who were old enought to UNDERSTAND what they are doing. Period. Jesus speaks of the condemned as being people who have understanding and can REASON and still reject it. NOT BABYS!! Before the age of reasoning, a baby is safe anyway, for those very reasons. Should that baby die, it would go striaght to the Lord, he said suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these. (Matt 19:14 NIV)
    Now if that doesn't tell you they are NOT inneed of baptism as a baby, I don't know what does. See this too:

    Matthew 19:13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
    Why do you think that was? I will tell you, they did not need it. In Gods eyes, they are innocent and pure, and in need of nothing as a result.

    John 6 44 and 45....ok, so it said no one and not No man. I don't think thats a terrible distinction.
    1Cor 14:20 states to be like children in their malice because children are perfect. Do they figure no one is going to look these verses up?
    Comment by Joyce:

    1 Corinthians 14:20 Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

    And your point is?? It simply states that adults should be INNOCENT as babys when it comes to evil, but as adults they should think as adults. Seems clear enough to me. You said, "Do they think no one will look these verses up? " Well, I highly doubt that, and furthermore what did they say that was so offensive or wrong in your view, other then "no one" instead of "no man" ?

    Acts 2:36-41 (New International Version, ©2010)

    36 “Therefore let all Israel be a-s-sured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

    37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

    38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

    40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

    Comment by Joyce: I printed it out, and the passages are addressing the Isrealites, and telling them about this Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Messiah. It then tells of Salvation and Baptism, and the fulfilment of the Holy Spirit. It promises the same to the children of these people.
    What part don't you understand?? It says "thier Children" also have the promise IF they repent and are baptised. That does not mean thier "baby" children, but thier adult (or age of reasoning) children.

    Okay, I have had enough of Gospel Way…send this verse to Gospel Way….Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” That is talking about the faith of one can save others....

    Comment by Joyce: CORRECTION...That is NOT what this means. No one's faith can "save" another..Salavtion is by the grace of God and YOU must repent and ask forgiveness and accept that Jesus died on the cross for your sins.
    PLEASE go read all the scriptures listed here from all bible verses..

    Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
    Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
    Acts 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.
    Acts 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
    Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    Note: Not all the people in the households were saved because someone else believed. They had to believe. Barnes commentary says:
    And thy house – And thy family. That is, the same salvation is equally adapted to, and offered to your family. It does not mean that his family would be saved simply by his believing, but that the offers had reference to them as well as to himself; that they might be saved as well as he. His attention was thus called at once, as every man's should be, to his family. He was reminded that they needed salvation, and he was presented with the a-s-surance that they might unite with him in the peace and joy of redeeming mercy. Compare the notes on Acts 2:39. It may be implied here that the faith of a father may be expected to be the means of the salvation of his family. It often is so in fact; but the direct meaning is, that salvation was offered to his family as well as himself, implying that if they believed they should also be saved.

    In Finality you stated
    So with that I would say our two worlds are not that far apart on Baptism except for a few…perhaps should we say, ‘modern protestants’, who take personal interpretation of the Bible as gospel.

    Comment by Joyce: ALL scripture is inspired by God
    2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).
    2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"

    Please note that the second passage refers to personal interpetation, that says was NOT inspired by man, by by the holy men of God, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    So, when one reads, and prays ans seeks out the word of God thru the gospel, they are not doing any "personal" interpeting, but exercising 2 Timothy 3:16.

    And yes. It is gospel, one that God gave mankind out of love.

    January 13, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
  3. Joyce Milton

    I forgot to post the link...sorry (CatholicMom)


    January 12, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Joyce Milton,

      You stated, ‘Of course Baptism is important. Why should babys be excluded? You never showed me any verse and scripture to show me where it is in the bible. Babys should be excluded until they can understand what they are doing,no? Read your bible and this will be all clear to you.’

      When I asked ‘why should babies be excluded’…you said that I never showed you any verse or scripture where baby baptism is in the Bible. So you don’t think the verses I gave you are in the Bible? That is where I found them. Then you suggest I read my bible…I do read my Bible and it is clear to me that baby baptism is not excluded. You offered nothing for your stance on Baptism of babies except to denounce it.

      You stated, ‘If you take the scriptures and what is written regarding these, you will see the flaws in what you are saying, compared to what God says. So what is written by the 'Gospel Way web site' is explaining what God says and that is what you mean by 'what is written regarding these'?

      This is from Gospel Way……

      ‘Mark 16:15,16 – All who are baptized, must first have the gospel preached to them. But what good would be done by preaching to a baby?

      This is what Mark 16:15,16 says: 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’ So you believe that if whole households are preached the gospel and whole households are baptized that babies are excluded because they do not believe thus are condemned. That is beyond ridiculous!

      John 6:44,45 – No one can come to Jesus without being taught from the Father. This does not just mean simply hearing sounds. One must "learn"; he must understand the meaning of what is being taught. Can babies do this (cf. 1 Cor. 14:20)?

      If the Gospel Way would quote the verses word for word instead of changing the words...anyway, it would say ‘no man’ not ‘no one’. 1Cor 14:20 states to be like children in their malice because children are perfect. Do they figure no one is going to look these verses up?

      Acts 2:36,41 – This example shows what it means for people to learn the gospel before they are baptized. The people were given evidence that Jesus is God's Son (v14-36). They were told that, on the basis of this evidence, they must "know assuredly" that Jesus is Lord and Christ (v36). Those who were baptized were those who gladly received this message (v41). Can babies hear and learn in this way?

      If Gospel Way is trying use these verses to refute baby Baptism…I can see why they didn’t print the verse out for you….it says….to be baptized every one of you…and!....for the promise is to you and to your children!!!!!!!!!!

      Okay, I have had enough of Gospel Way…send this verse to Gospel Way….Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” That is talking about the faith of one can save others....

      Further, this was written by a protestant, Louis Cas-sels, whose writings are highly regarded by protestants: ‘It may strike the reader as remarkable, after so much stress on differences, to learn that Catholics and Protestants have very similar ideas about baptism. Both affirm that it is primarily God’s action, not man’s. Some Protestants insist on the necessity for a response in faith by the person being baptized; they therefore practice only adult or "believer’s baptism." But the vast majority of Protestants agree with the Catholic Church that infants can and should be baptized, because the efficacy of the action is altogether independent of the att!tude of the recipient, or the credentials of the one who performs it. (The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of a baptism performed by a Protestant, or even one performed by an atheist, provided water is used and the name of the Trinity is properly invoked according to the biblical prescription.)’

      So with that I would say our two worlds are not that far apart on Baptism except for a few…perhaps should we say, ‘modern protestants’, who take personal interpretation of the Bible as gospel.

      January 12, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
  4. Joyce Milton

    I am on my break, so only have a few minutes.
    I think you are confused about Baby Baptism. In order for anything to be right in the eyes of the Lord, it has to be according to scripture, not what man has ordained to try and make it fit with scripture.
    Here is an excellent website by The Gospel Way, that may help you to better understand about Baptism and Baby Baptism.
    It is important that you have the truth. I can tell by your a-s-sertions above, (ie: whats wrong with baptising babies, households were baptised, etc) you have some confusion. If you take the scriptures and what is written regarding these, you will see the flaws in what you are saying, compared to what God says.

    True, Salvation is by the grace of God. However, the bible clearly says you must make a move on your behalf, to accept what Jesus did for you, which is he died for your sins. True, it is not just by saying you are saved. You must follow thru and do as Jesus commanded.
    Baptism by immersion, shows that you are buried in Christ and have risen to the new life in Christ, Jesus said you must recognize him before man, if you want him to recognize you before the Father. That requires a decision on your behalf to make, and the baptism follows for the saved person.
    I do hope you find the truth. We were forewarned by Jesus himself, not to believe every doctrine or false teachers.

    January 12, 2011 at 11:49 am |
  5. Joyce Milton


    Ephesians 2:20 which says that the church's foundation is the apostles and prophets, not Peter alone.

    See also ! Peter 2:7 1 Peter 5: 1 , 2 Gal: 2:9

    January 12, 2011 at 9:14 am |
  6. Jason

    For Tom

    The major quarrel between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church is that the latter holds to the ancient faith of the Revelation of Christ once made to the Saints [Jude], recorded in Scripture and completed, explained and interpreted by the Seven Ec-u-menical Councils. This both the Anglican and Orthodox Churches claim to be the Magisterium [ Authority,] within the Catholic Church! A further dispute between Rome and the Church in England is that the Romans accept the Ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. That is that he is the Bishop of Bishops! Anglicans dispute this because it is not recorded in either scripture or Holy Tradition! It is a development of some four or five hundred years after Christ and as such is simply an addition to the Deposit of Faith.[Paul.]

    According to the official Book of Common Prayer the articles of the three creeds are to be believed; the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation; Purgatory, indulgences, veneration of images and relics, and the invocation of saints are "vainly invented" and "repugnant to the word of God"; two sacraments necessary for salvation were ordained by Christ, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord; transubstantiation "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture"; the "sacrifices of Masses ... were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits"; "the Bishop of Rome hath no jursidiction in this realm of England," etc. These still represent the belief of many Anglicans.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_similarities_and_differences_between_the_Roman_Catholic_and_Anglican_denomination#ixzz1ApErwte2

    January 12, 2011 at 8:00 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Here is a list of all the Popes down through history.

      1.St. Peter (32-67)
      2.St. Linus (67-76)
      3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
      4.St. Clement I (88-97)
      5.St. Evaristus (97-105)
      6.St. Alexander I (105-115)
      7.St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
      8.St. Telesphorus (125-136)
      9.St. Hyginus (136-140)
      10.St. Pius I (140-155)
      11.St. Anicetus (155-166)
      12.St. Soter (166-175)
      13.St. Eleutherius (175-189)
      14.St. Victor I (189-199)
      15.St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
      16.St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
      17.St. Urban I (222-30)
      18.St. Pontain (230-35)
      19.St. Anterus (235-36)
      20.St. Fabian (236-50)
      21.St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
      22.St. Lucius I (253-54)
      23.St. Stephen I (254-257)
      24.St. Sixtus II (257-258)
      25.St. Dionysius (260-268)
      26.St. Felix I (269-274)
      27.St. Eutychian (275-283)
      28.St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
      29.St. Marcellinus (296-304)
      30.St. Marcellus I (308-309)
      31.St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
      32.St. Miltiades (311-14)
      33.St. Sylvester I (314-35)
      34.St. Marcus (336)
      35.St. Julius I (337-52)
      36.Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
      37.St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
      38.St. Siricius (384-99)
      39.St. Anastasius I (399-401)
      40.St. Innocent I (401-17)
      41.St. Zosimus (417-18)
      42.St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
      43.St. Celestine I (422-32)
      44.St. Sixtus III (432-40)
      45.St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
      46.St. Hilarius (461-68)
      47.St. Simplicius (468-83)
      48.St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
      49.St. Gelasius I (492-96)
      50.Anastasius II (496-98)
      51.St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
      52.St. Hormisdas (514-23)
      53.St. John I (523-26)
      54.St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
      55.Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
      56.John II (533-35)
      57.St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
      58.St. Silverius (536-37)
      59.Vigilius (537-55)
      60.Pelagius I (556-61)
      61.John III (561-74)
      62.Benedict I (575-79)
      63.Pelagius II (579-90)
      64.St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
      65.Sabinian (604-606)
      66.Boniface III (607)
      67.St. Boniface IV (608-15)
      68.St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
      69.Boniface V (619-25)
      70.Honorius I (625-38)
      71.Severinus (640)
      72.John IV (640-42)
      73.Theodore I (642-49)
      74.St. Martin I (649-55)
      75.St. Eugene I (655-57)
      76.St. Vitalian (657-72)
      77.Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
      78.Donus (676-78)
      79.St. Agatho (678-81)
      80.St. Leo II (682-83)
      81.St. Benedict II (684-85)
      82.John V (685-86)
      83.Conon (686-87)
      84.St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
      85.John VI (701-05)
      86.John VII (705-07)
      87.Sisinnius (708)
      88.Constantine (708-15)
      89.St. Gregory II (715-31)
      90.St. Gregory III (731-41)
      91.St. Zachary (741-52)
      92.Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
      93.Stephen III (752-57)
      94.St. Paul I (757-67)
      95.Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
      96.Adrian I (772-95)
      97.St. Leo III (795-816)
      98.Stephen V (816-17)
      99.St. Paschal I (817-24)
      100.Eugene II (824-27)
      101.Valentine (827)
      102.Gregory IV (827-44)
      103.Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
      104.St. Leo IV (847-55)
      105.Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
      106.St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
      107.Adrian II (867-72)
      108.John VIII (872-82)
      109.Marinus I (882-84)
      110.St. Adrian III (884-85)
      111.Stephen VI (885-91)
      112.Formosus (891-96)
      113.Boniface VI (896)
      114.Stephen VII (896-97)
      115.Romanus (897)
      116.Theodore II (897)
      117.John IX (898-900)
      118.Benedict IV (900-03)
      119.Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
      120.Sergius III (904-11)
      121.Anastasius III (911-13)
      122.Lando (913-14)
      123.John X (914-28)
      124.Leo VI (928)
      125.Stephen VIII (929-31)
      126.John XI (931-35)
      127.Leo VII (936-39)
      128.Stephen IX (939-42)
      129.Marinus II (942-46)
      130.Agapetus II (946-55)
      131.John XII (955-63)
      132.Leo VIII (963-64)
      133.Benedict V (964)
      134.John XIII (965-72)
      135.Benedict VI (973-74)
      136.Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
      137.John XIV (983-84)
      138.John XV (985-96)
      139.Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
      140.Sylvester II (999-1003)
      141.John XVII (1003)
      142.John XVIII (1003-09)
      143.Sergius IV (1009-12)
      144.Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
      145.John XIX (1024-32)
      146.Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
      147.Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
      148.Benedict IX (1045)
      149.Gregory VI (1045-46)
      150.Clement II (1046-47)
      151.Benedict IX (1047-48)
      152.Damasus II (1048)
      153.St. Leo IX (1049-54)
      154.Victor II (1055-57)
      155.Stephen X (1057-58)
      156.Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
      157.Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
      158.St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
      159.Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
      160.Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
      161.Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
      162.Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
      163.Callistus II (1119-24)
      164.Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
      165.Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
      166.Celestine II (1143-44)
      167.Lucius II (1144-45)
      168.Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
      169.Anastasius IV (1153-54)
      170.Adrian IV (1154-59)
      171.Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
      172.Lucius III (1181-85)
      173.Urban III (1185-87)
      174.Gregory VIII (1187)
      175.Clement III (1187-91)
      176.Celestine III (1191-98)
      177.Innocent III (1198-1216)
      178.Honorius III (1216-27)
      179.Gregory IX (1227-41)
      180.Celestine IV (1241)
      181.Innocent IV (1243-54)
      182.Alexander IV (1254-61)
      183.Urban IV (1261-64)
      184.Clement IV (1265-68)
      185.Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
      186.Blessed Innocent V (1276)
      187.Adrian V (1276)
      188.John XXI (1276-77)
      189.Nicholas III (1277-80)
      190.Martin IV (1281-85)
      191.Honorius IV (1285-87)
      192.Nicholas IV (1288-92)
      193.St. Celestine V (1294)
      194.Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
      195.Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
      196.Clement V (1305-14)
      197.John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
      198.Benedict XII (1334-42)
      199.Clement VI (1342-52)
      200.Innocent VI (1352-62)
      201.Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
      202.Gregory XI (1370-78)
      203.Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
      204.Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
      205.Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
      206.Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
      207.Martin V (1417-31)
      208.Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
      209.Nicholas V (1447-55)
      210.Callistus III (1455-58)
      211.Pius II (1458-64)
      212.Paul II (1464-71)
      213.Sixtus IV (1471-84)
      214.Innocent VIII (1484-92)
      215.Alexander VI (1492-1503)
      216.Pius III (1503)
      217.Julius II (1503-13)
      218.Leo X (1513-21)
      219.Adrian VI (1522-23)
      220.Clement VII (1523-34)
      221.Paul III (1534-49)
      222.Julius III (1550-55)
      223.Marcellus II (1555)
      224.Paul IV (1555-59)
      225.Pius IV (1559-65)
      226.St. Pius V (1566-72)
      227.Gregory XIII (1572-85)
      228.Sixtus V (1585-90)
      229.Urban VII (1590)
      230.Gregory XIV (1590-91)
      231.Innocent IX (1591)
      232.Clement VIII (1592-1605)
      233.Leo XI (1605)
      234.Paul V (1605-21)
      235.Gregory XV (1621-23)
      236.Urban VIII (1623-44)
      237.Innocent X (1644-55)
      238.Alexander VII (1655-67)
      239.Clement IX (1667-69)
      240.Clement X (1670-76)
      241.Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
      242.Alexander VIII (1689-91)
      243.Innocent XII (1691-1700)
      244.Clement XI (1700-21)
      245.Innocent XIII (1721-24)
      246.Benedict XIII (1724-30)
      247.Clement XII (1730-40)
      248.Benedict XIV (1740-58)
      249.Clement XIII (1758-69)
      250.Clement XIV (1769-74)
      251.Pius VI (1775-99)
      252.Pius VII (1800-23)
      253.Leo XII (1823-29)
      254.Pius VIII (1829-30)
      255.Gregory XVI (1831-46)
      256.Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
      257.Leo XIII (1878-1903)
      258.St. Pius X (1903-14)

      259.Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
      260.Pius XI (1922-39)
      261.Pius XII (1939-58)
      262.Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
      263.Paul VI (1963-78)
      264.John Paul I (1978)
      265.John Paul II (1978-2005)
      266.Benedict XVI (2005—)

      January 12, 2011 at 11:37 pm |
  7. Jason

    Mayby you should read this article. I am a Lutheran. It tells why Martin Luther left the Catholic church, and it was not to start his own, but to reform the Catholic Church, due to what was gone on at the time.

    What’s the Difference? A Co-mparison of the Faiths Men Live By by Louis Cassels

    Scroll down to The Lutherans, once there.

    I tried to post the link, but it kept moderating, so unable to do so. Google the t-i-tle above to go there.
    This article defines how corrupt the RCC was in mediieval times, and how the clergy and so on were not living as they were suppose to for God.

    January 12, 2011 at 7:47 am |
    • CatholicMom


      I read the Comparison between Catholics and Protestants. I copied and pasted statements and then in parenthe-sis [I made comments on it.]

      From: A Comparison of the Faiths Men Live By Louis Cassels

      To Luther, a devout Augustinian friar who wanted to reform rather than split the Church, this crass merchandising of salvation was directly contrary to the plain teaching of the New Testament. He cited the words of St. Paul to show that salvation is a free gift which a gracious God bestows on men through Jesus Christ, without their doing anything to merit or deserve it. "Justification by grace through faith alone" became the slogan of the Reformation, and it has remained the cardinal principle of Protestant theology until this day.

      [But now protestants say we must say the sinner’s prayer to be saved; when did the sinner’s prayer become gospel…Is it part of Lutheranism? Without saying it, you are not saved. By saying this prayer, one is saved, they say. Is that Lutheran doctrine or does it come from the more modern splits?]

      During the Counter Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church elim-inated many of the gross abuses, such as the sale of indulgences, that had laid the Church open to the charge of "peddling" salvation. It also took steps to repudiate any suggestion that a man can earn his passage to heaven by pious deeds. Since the Council of Trent (1545 to 1563), it has been official Catholic teaching that sinful human beings are justified in the eyes of God — that is, saved — by faith plus good works. "For Catholics, quite as much as for Protestants, the whole Christian life rests on faith," says Albert Cardinal Meyer, Catholic Archbishop of Chicago. "Without faith, the ‘works,’ or actions, of Christian living would be without Christian value. Faith, however, itself cannot be the source of man’s salvation unless it is a living faith, that is a faith which flowers in hope and love, and hence in the works of a Christian life of service to God and neighbor.

      [‘Scandal in the Church needs be’, said Jesus, but woe to the one who brings it. It was good that Martin Luther brought these gross abuses to light but to then renounce Truths or doctrines of the Church is where he went wrong. We must expose the scandal but we do not abandon the Church and go start a new ecclesial community, abandoning doctrine of Truth and changing the Word of God to suit our personal interpretation of it. This is so per-vasive in our culture…at the first sign of scandal in a marriage…leave (divorce) and start a new one….this is not working too well for families as we all can see. Society is crumbling under it all. Catholics believe that it is through Baptism that our works become worthy because it is the Holy Spirit working through us. Before Baptism we can still do good works but they will burn as straw because we can do nothing that is meritorious without Jesus Christ. Though our works may perish [without Baptism] we can still be saved.]

      But Protestants find many other grounds for rej-ecting an authoritarian hierarchy headed by an infallible Pope.

      [Yes, and could one of those ‘grounds’ be the prideful notion that their personal interpretation of the Word of God suf-fices over what the Church proclaims…the Church that put the Books of the Bible together? It appears that the protestant wishes to be his own pope.]

      The reverence that a Catholic has for his Church is very similar to his reverence for Christ. A Protestant, on the other hand, instin-ctively regards all ecclesiastical inst!tutions with sus-pic-ion if not scorn. His allegiance is directly and personally to Christ.

      [This appears to be so true. Look at today’s 38,000 ecclesial communities that the protestants have spawn…and they are still splitting. It seems that they know they do not have the fullness of Truth that the Catholic Church contains….and their hearts are longing for ‘something’ which they perceive as ‘another church but definitely it can’t be the Catholic Church, they say’. So what is happening now?….they are rej-ecting ‘religion’…saying all you need is yourself, your Bible, and the sinner’s prayer. Even though, at least the ‘old people’ (like me!), older protestants are looking at where they got their Bibles and know where they should be looking; with age and study come knowledge…from knowledge springs wisdom.]

      There is a widespread and entirely erron-eous idea among Protestants that Catholics attach very little importance to the Bible, and indeed seldom read it. Actually, Catholic theology accords a very high and prominent place to Scripture. There are, however, two important differences between Catholic and Protestant att!tudes toward the Bible. Whereas Protestants insist on the Bible as the sole source of doctrine, Catholics believe that traditions which have been handed down in the Church for centuries may also be considered vehicles of divine revelation. They point out that the Bible itself was the fruit of oral traditions that were cir-culated in the Church for many years before they were written down, and that the New Testament expressly says that there were "other things" that Jesus said and did which were not included in the Gospel accounts.

      [ No, we do not say that all Tradition was eventually written down. This paragraph is a very weak accounting of why the Church holds fast to Tradition instead of the sola scriptura doctrine. One very reason at the top, a cru-cial reason for holding fast to Tradition, is because the Bible commands that we do so!!]

      [In the next paragraph, ‘who interprets scripture?’ needs to be read by all. Why no mention of the Bible verse that the gospel is NOT a matter of personal interpretation?]

      [ In the next paragraph, ‘The Adoration of Mary’ proclaims that Catholics adore Mary when Catholics adore God but honor Mary and venerate her as the Mother of God asking that she pray for us. Do not protestants know that she is the Mother of God? Isn’t Jesus Christ God? Did not God save His Mother at her conc-eption from sin so that she, his human tabernacle, would be worthy of holding Him in her body? Could not God take Mary up to Heaven, body and soul if He wanted to…what about Moses and Elijah? Would not His Mother warrant as much honor? Did not Jesus say, ‘Honor thy mother?’ [and Father?] Are we not children of God…is not Jesus our brother?…if Jesus is our Brother, is not Mary our Mother, too? Did Jesus not honor His Mother…should we not emulate Him? This was a most poorly written paragraph and shows the author’s disgust of this Catholic Truth. And the next paragraph complaining that Mary is ‘co-redemptrix’ with Christ does not explain it at all.....and it only means that because of her co-operation with Christ she has helped in our salvation by bringing our Savior to us; too many are so worried to the point that they cannot even say ‘Thank you, Mary, for saying Yes!’]

      [When speaking of other Church doctrine, protestants us words as ‘vainly invented’. Do they not understand Scripture…. that the Holy Spirit was promised, to bring the Apostles and their successors into remembrance of all that they had heard from Jesus Christ, and that they were also promised the fullness of Truth as they could bear it? Not everything is in Scripture for if everything that Jesus ever said and did was written down the world would not be big enough to hold all the Books! That is also in Scripture.]

      January 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  8. Tom C

    The one thing ex father Cutie talks about is the Blessed Sacrament. We Catholics believe, with non-refutable backing from the Bible, that when we recieve communion, we recieve the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Anglicans and Episcopalions believe it is a resemblance of Jesus. Father Cutie did not renounce this belief. Until he stands up and says the words to renounce the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist he can give excuses till he is blue in the face.

    January 11, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  9. Reality

    The Truth in 2011:

    1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

    "New Torah For Modern Minds

    Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

    Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

    The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment.

    2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan se-cts.

    The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hit-ti-tes, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

    For added "pizz-azz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "fil-icider".

    Current RCC problems:

    Pedo-ph-iliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

    3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

    Current problems:

    Adu-lterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

    January 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  10. Joyce Milton

    That would be those lukewarm, professing Christians. The ones who ignore the advice prior to the invitation, and pretend to be what they are not, Those are the ones that he will tell to go away..
    The words, Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest, therefore, and repent. The person who believes what Jesus has said, and earnesttly repents, and accepts Jesus invitation, shall be saved.

    However, the issue was not about the invitation, but you stated one did not need to do anything.
    That is not true, as I have proven, and you have seen by the very words you also quoted. Of course Jesus knows his own.

    As far as the Catholic (meaning universal) Church being founded by Jesus Christ, I agree, But the Catholic Church
    you attend,was founded by men on earth, and it appoints itself as that by saying Peter was the first pope. That is where I disagree with you.
    Jesus Christ was the rock, not Peter. Universal encompasses ALL people, not just one "sect" who claims rights to the throne, by adoption of the papal succession, by claims of peter being the first. Popes don't marry, Peter was.

    Of course Baptism is important. Why should babys be excluded? You never showed me any verse and scripture to show me where it is in the bible. Babys should be excluded until they can understand what they are doing,no? Read your bible and this will be all clear to you.
    I am aware of what Satan believes, but thanks for inquiring.
    Baptism comes after Salvation, for the very reason you stated. Which brings me back to square one...can a Baby willingly be baptised, and show before man his willingness to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour? Of Course not. He must do this understanding what he is doing, before man.

    We receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism and must become fearless also in proclaiming the Truth.
    EXACTLY! We do. But a baby can't reason, think, or speak. So how does Baptism of a baby qualiify to carry out the commands of our God?

    God makes no mistakes, and has order in all things. Do not be conflicted by the teachings of false doctrines .

    January 11, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Joyce Milton,

      Catholics have always been accused of the ones who ‘think they have to do works’ and this is confused with works before Baptism and works after Baptism. The point I was making about salvation is that it is Jesus Christ’s Way that saves…not anything we do. There is nothing we can do that is good without Christ. Works without Baptism are as straw. Those who think that by saying the ‘sinner’s prayer’ as some call it…that that is what saves them…not the gift of Jesus Christ, His dying and rising so that we might have life-everlasting.

      So it is through Faith in Jesus Christ first that brings us along Jesus Christ’s Way to Salvation. A baby can receive Jesus Christ because of her/his parent’s faith. The Bible tells us of the Works that Jesus Christ did for others due to someone else’s faith in asking for it. Babies need not wait. Whole households were baptized…but not the babies? That is quite absurd when Jesus says not to hinder the children but let them come to Him.

      Parents are their guardians and want only the best for their children…or should. How many children know what is best for them? If you are as old as me you would have seen how over the years children make decisions all the time because of lapsed judgment of the parents or no guidance at all for them.

      Children who are Baptized can renounce their Baptism when they are of age or can renew the vows, of their own freewill so Baptism is a plus in their lives, not a negative. No, babies should not be excluded from the Body of Christ, the mystical Body that all the Baptized are a part of. There is no question as to each child as an individual has his own time of acknowledging the presents of Jesus Christ in his/her life but already being a member of the Body of Christ, not a day goes by that the child’s doing good…showing love towards his family or anyone…. is not building up the Body of Christ…why keep them from it? Do you think that a baby that smiles at his parents is not doing good? Don't the parents in turn praise God for their baby? It all works for the building up of the Body of Christ. Yes, the parents faith is worthy, just as the Centurian's servant was healed because of the Centurian's faith which was worthy in Jesus' eyes.

      Besides, Baptism is not a ‘show’ for others to ‘see’…it is the moment the Holy Spirit begins His residency in one’s soul. People can reject Him and they do through their sinning but with Him there, in their soul, His Love is there doing its saving grace which is a help that we all need. It appears to me that people shun Baptism and do not know what it is truly about, saying, ‘I already told Jesus I want Him as my Savior …so He is already ‘there’…living in me!’ So they believe they are in control of their salvation and they just have to say the word and it is so. They do not know about sin and believe they cannot lose their salvation by it. They think that once they say ‘the word’ they are saved. Being saved is a gift but it is given to us by the hands of Jesus Christ…not by our taking it in our way.

      So much has been removed from Truth since 1521 to the point that people are saying they do not need ‘religion’ anymore. Those from denominations that keep changing to try to accommodate modern man so that he doesn’t have to think about sin are the cause of it. People want to take their Bibles, or the parts that they adhere to, and say 'that is all they need' even when the Bible tells them that the gospel is not a matter of personal interpretation. But each wants to be his/her own Pope anyway.

      If one could list all the advice that Jesus Christ gives in the Bible, not to mention all the advice He gave to His Apostles which He told them to hold fast to…if all of that were listed…how many lukewarm Christians would there be?

      January 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Joyce Milton,

      Jesus Christ ‘was’, as you said, [but still IS] the Cornerstone of the Catholic Church, the rock, and to Peter, the first Pope, was given the keys to the newly founded Church, founded on Peter, also rock. Jesus asks Peter to feed His sheep. Your reasoning to disagree with the Succession of Popes is….?

      Very little is known about Peter’s wife other than Peter interceded for his mother-in-law who was afflicted with a fever. After the intercession, the fever left her and she arose and attend to the guests. Peter who may have had a wife was not attended by his wife as would be the custom of those times. Tradition has it that Peter’s wife may have been martyred. Nevertheless, it does not hold that he could not be Pope due to having been married, though the Church determined that Bishops and Priest could be better servant’s of God’s people if they were not divided between two vocations.

      Since Peter responded to Jesus’ question, ‘but who do you say that I AM?’ with an answer that affirmed Jesus as the messiah, Jesus knew that Peter could have only known that from personal revelation from His Father in Heaven. This was the man to head His Church!

      With the command by Jesus to His Apostles to go out to all the world and Baptize all nations it was imperative that further good men [Bishops] come in succession to fill the office of one that died so that the command could be filfilled. There were always Popes from then on who when they spoke on faith and morals it was/is accepted as infallible. With Jesus’ promise to bring them into all remembrances of what He had told them and to bring them into the fullness of Truth as they could bear it, there need be a continuation of leadership in Jesus’ founded Church.

      The universal Church that you refer to is the Body of Christ, those members through Baptism. This Body does not contain the Sacraments [Seven in all] which are a means of grace which help keep us as members of His Body. I cannot come to you, a Baptized person, to receive any of the Sacraments which Jesus Christ inst!tuted before His ascension nor can you receive them from me. It is by the hands of ordained Priests who have been SENT by Jesus Christ to be His in persona Christi in distributing His Sacraments. It is the Catholic Church which contains the fullness of these Sacraments.

      When the denominations broke from the Catholic Church in 1521 they did so knowing they were leaving behind Sacraments and Authority, Tradition which the Apostles were told to hold fast to, and the whole Bible.

      January 11, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
  11. Joyce Milton

    CatholicMom, Have you not heard of this passage in Revelation?

    “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”

    It clearly says that YOU must open the door to your heart and invite Jesus in. Thus, you have accepted what he has done by dying on the cross for you. Therefore it does const-i-tute an action on YOUR behalf.

    Like Marcie, I too believe that JESUS is the rock, not Peter. Jesus said he would build his church upon THIS rock, AFTER Peter said he was the son of God.

    Jesus did not limit his love for people and his death on the cross to organized religion. He could care less about that. He cares about your acceptance of him, at which time you are saved, and after baptism, you are filled with the Holy Spirit. That is again, something you must do as an adult, or when you are able to UNDERSTAND what your doing. A baby who is baptised cannot make that choice by proxy of his/her parents. Read your bible! Where does baby baptism mentioned in the bible?
    People were baptised in Johns day, and recieved the Holy Spirit, but that was because Jesus had not yet died for the sins of mankind.

    January 11, 2011 at 7:37 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Joyce Milton,

      For you say, 'I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything,' and yet do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.
      I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see.
      Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest, therefore, and repent.
      " '"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, (then) I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.

      How many hear the knock on the door but do not hear the advice given just before the knock? How many expect to come to the wedding feast not properly clothed? How many do not have enough oil for their lamps and will be left outside the door gnashing their teeth? How many will say ‘Lord, Lord’ when the door is opened to them and will be told ‘Go, I do not know you?’ How many will keep their garments white by persevering and enduring to the end? If you heard His voice to open the door, did you hear the advice first and accept it?

      ….‘organized religion’ are man-made words for man-made religions. Denominations started by man; Luthernism in 1521 which broke from the Catholic Church is a denomination; then all the denominations [derived from the denomination it fell from] are denominations…but the Catholic Church is not a denomination as it was founded by Jesus Christ. Yes, man organized about 38,000 religions so far, but Jesus Christ founded His Church, the Catholic Church, and is the only One divinely founded.

      John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 speak of the importance of Baptism. Did Jesus Christ say to the Apostles…. go out and Baptize all nations but not the children? Jesus Christ healed many by another’s faith. Since Baptism is a gift and we do nothing to deserve it, why should babies be excluded? We do not know when Jesus Christ will call us home…hopefully all will be clothed in their white garments when the door opens.

      When John Baptized, he did so with only water. But with Jesus Christ, we are Baptized with water and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You stated,... 'your acceptance of him, at which time you are saved....Do you mean you believe in Him and you accept all that He said? Or just that you believe He exists and is your savior? Because you know that satan believes He exists but he is not saved. Right?

      We do not know about anyone’s soul, but God will see their heart…each was given knowledge in their conscience of a Creator…and we pray that none are lost…We know God is Just and God is merciful. But all nations need to hear the Truth so they can respond fully and this was the command Jesus Christ entrusted to the Apostles when He breathed the Holy Spirit into their souls and they became fearless in their task ahead. We receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism and must become fearless also in proclaiming the Truth.

      January 11, 2011 at 11:49 am |
  12. Jaugernaut

    So, a person that never heard of the pope, a "catholic" church, will go to hell? What about people that live in jungles, some of those tribes are still uncivilized, and do not have access to what people in this country do.

    January 11, 2011 at 7:17 am |
    • CatholicMom


      I commented to Joyce, just below, about your question...hopefully it will help you understand....

      January 11, 2011 at 11:51 am |
  13. Marcie

    The Catholic Church is pretty judgemental, and that is a joke when they break every rule that God said NOT to break. I am sure Jesus likes the fact that the Catholic church teaches that his sacrifice on the cross wasn't necessary, since they believe they get the same benefit thru thier baptism. Mayby thats why all Catholic churches still show Jesus hanging on the cross, then they go thru the ritual of the mass, sacrificing him all over again!
    Along with that, I am sure that Jesus likes knowing that no one can be saved, less they come thru the Pope. A mere man with sin like everybody else. One who is also in need of salvation thru Jesus Christ.
    Wonder what the shock value will be when they find out that Peter was not the rock spoken of as they beieve? Mayby they will blame in on the pope or the traditions?
    Yes, whoa to the one that brings it on. How many will hang thier heads in shame for believing that paying your way thru "purgatory" (a truly made up place) , by paying indulgences, will help get them cleansed and into heaven? There is one chance to be saved, and its NOT after your breathe your last breath. The only way to be saved is thru Jesus Christ. No religion, priests, indulgence, prayer, or anything else can do it for you/ YOU have to make the decision.
    No wonder Cutie got out of that place. Whats wrong with being married and fathering children? Nothing. No where does it say you will be kept from Heaven for following what God created. There is no where that says G-a-y people won't go to heaven either. Look at your own sin before you judge others. Sin is sin. Catholics have labeled it, big sin, little sin. Its the only way they could make a buck off ot it, and lead some astray.

    January 10, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • CatholicMom


      So the Church is judgmental in your view…and you’re not?....look at your whole post…..

      So why did Jesus Christ COMMAND the Apostle’s to go out and Baptize ALL nations? Did He make commandments for His good or for our good?

      Mass is a re-presenting of Jesus’ sacrifice…not another sacrifice. Seeing Jesus Christ on the Cross is a reminder to me of what He did for me….suffered and died so that I might have life everlasting! [and did it for you, too!]

      Yes, we are all in need of salvation and if Jesus had not died and rose, which opened Heaven to us, Baptism would be of no avail; but as it is, salvation is a continual process and once we are Baptized we can do work that merits in Heaven because it is the Holy Spirit working through us. Without Baptism our works are as straw for we can do nothing worthy without Him.

      There will be no unclean thing that will enter Heaven and some may need purging as through fire before they can enter Heaven. 1Cor 3:15. We know there is sin against the Holy Spirit that cannot be forgiven in this age or the next. Mt 12:32. [which means there are some sins that can be forgiven in this age…and the next. So you still think all sin is the same?

      So you’re saying, ‘YOU have to make the decision.’…about your salvation. So you say it is ‘something you say or do’ that saves you,… it isn’t what Jesus Christ did for us? I have to disagree. ….salvation is a gift just as faith is a gift. There is nothing you can say or do that will change what Jesus already did for you. It flat out is a gift. So why not just be thankful for the gifts from God which includes His Sacraments… from which graces flow to us through His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He founded on the first Pope, Peter and of which Jesus Christ is the Head …and just persevere in doing good; enduring to the end while keeping the will of the Father in mind at all times.

      Where did you get the idea that gay people won’t go to heaven? This is what the Catholic Church says about hom-o-s3xuals:

      January 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • Andrew

      You should really sit down with a good Catholic and try to understand the teachings. You are not even close in understanding the things you talked about. GOD BLESS

      January 11, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • Reality


      "Gerd Ludemann

      "Ludemann [Jesus, 23-25] characterizes Mark 3:28f (Matt 12: 32) as "a word of law or a community rule" that derives from the community, rather than from Jesus. He notes the two-stage structure, with every kind of sin and blasphemy being capable of forgiveness in v. 28, and the exception that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven, but does not consider the possibility that the more universal affirmation may derive from an older source (Jesus?). "

      And to summarize Christianity today:

      The Apostles' Creed 2010: (updated based on the studies of historians and theologians during the past 200 years)

      I might believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created state of bliss called heaven.

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary.

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.


      January 11, 2011 at 1:08 am |
  14. Doc Vestibule

    The following rambling post is purely my own opinion. There are no quotes, facts or figures to check up on. In other words, Doc V. is playing armchair psychologist.

    Most religions try very hard to direct the base se-xual urges all humans experience into neat little boxes. The Abrahamic religions particularly have had a difficult time coming to grips with teh reality of hom-ose-xuality's prevalence and thus have encouraged strong taboos against the behaviour.
    It is my belief that historically, many have chosen a preistly life of celibacy as the only viable alternative to "deviant" se-xuality. It may stem from fear of reprisal (execution as punishment for violation sod-omy laws, for example) but I think the majority take the vow of celibacy to assuage their own internalized guilt complex over violating religious taboo. Though their urges feel natural and come unbidden, the shame of such impure thoughts drives them to a self imposed repression. That the choice usually is lauded by family and community would be a further incentive to join shamanic ranks.
    However, you cannot repress such a basic facet of human nature forever!
    I believe that most of the pedophilic priests joined the clergy not out of love for Christ the Redeemer, but out of intense feelings of shame. One day, however, the drive becomes too great to suppress and their position of trust and power ceases to be a tool of self-denial, but of enabling the long suppressed urges.
    This is not to say that there aren't many priests who have taken their vow of celibacy with the purest of intentions (in their own eyes) – self denial to better server The Lord.
    But when even mastu-rbation is denied as an outlet for releasing the tension (Sin of Onanism, I believe) and the very thought of fornication damns you to eternal hellfire, then celibacy becomes untenable for 99% of the population regardless of orientation.

    At the end of the day, clergy are people too – and people need physical affection to stay mentally sound! One sided conversations with an invisible friend just won't cut it.
    Let the priests marry! (oh, and castrate the pedophiles – though that one is particularly un-christian).

    January 10, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Reality


      "The onset of ped-ophilia usually occurs during adolescence. Occasional ped-ophiles begin their activities during middle age but this late onset is uncommon. In the United States, about 50% of men arrested for ped-ophilia are married. "


      "A survey was administered to 193 male undergraduate students regarding their se-xual interest in children, as well as their responses to a number of questions theoretically relevant to ped-ophilia. In total, 21 % of subjects reported se-xual attraction to some small children, 9% described se-xual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having mast-urbated to such fantasies, and 7% indicated some likelihood of having se-x with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment. These se-xual interests were associated with negative early se-xual experiences, mas-turbation to por-nography, self-reported likelihood of ra-p-ing a woman, frequent se-x partners, se-xual conflicts, and att-itudes supportive of se-xual dominance over women. The data did not, however, support clinical theories regarding se-xual repression or impulse-control problems among potential ped-ophiles."

      And this from Wikipedia:

      Due to the stereotype that ped-ophiles are always male, it has been difficult to determine the prevalence of female ped-ophiles; however, studies in the UK and USA suggest that a range of 5% to 20% of child se-xual abuse offenses are perpetrated by women.[20]”

      January 10, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
1 2
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.