On Sunday, Catholic Mass won't sound the same
Rev. Benny George is a associate pastor at St. Francis Xavier Parish in Burbank, California.
November 26th, 2011
01:40 PM ET

On Sunday, Catholic Mass won't sound the same

By Jim Roope, CNN Radio National Correspondent

(CNN)–If you’re Catholic, mass this Sunday will sound different for  the first time in nearly half a century.

You’ll hear it in the prayers of both the people and the priests.

“We have come back to a more accurate translation of the Latin from the Roman Missal,” said Fr. Rick Hilgartner, executive director of the Divine Office of Worship for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “The language of prayer should be evocative, speaking in terms of imagery and metaphor.”

The changes are enormous, said Fr. Richard Albarano, of St. Francis Xavier Church in Burbank, California, and should help the 280 million English-speaking Catholics grow in their  love for the mass. “The mass is the center of our lives,” said Albarano.

Not since the Second Vatican Council in 1965 have such sweeping changes been made.

The Vatican II changes were radical – the priest spoke in English instead of Latin and he faced the people instead of having his back to them. An Old Testament reading was also added to the mass, a surprise to many who thought of the Catholic Church as a New Testament only church.

Other changes, large and small, were designed by Pope John XXIII to get the people (and not just the priest) involved in the mass. But the changes were not communicated in advance. People showed up one Sunday morning, and it was all changed.

“They wondered if they were even in a Catholic church,” said Albarano.

This time, the Catholic Church has been talking about the changes, and communicating them to parishes, since 2000. For the past three months, many parishes have been working to ready their followers for the changes in the wording of the prayers.

That doesn’t mean some won’t be caught by surprise. “It’s going to be like Vatican II all over again,” Albarano said. “I haven’t heard much about catechizing across the Los Angeles Archdiocese at all. We said we were going to do it. I hope we did.”

To hear the complete story, click the audio player.


Filed under: Catholic Church • Mass

soundoff (1,372 Responses)
  1. babaelf

    Threre's been a lot of talk on here about Jesus' miracles. Meher Baba said: "From the spiritual point of view miracles are nothing but farce. Jesus said, “I and my Father are one,” meaning He was and is God. I and many others believe this is true. Now, God is said to have created this entire phenomenal universe. This is God’s miracle and therefore the miracle of Jesus. It means innumerable beings are created and destroyed every second according to His will.
    "Yet, they lay down that Jesus’ greatest miracle was raising a few dead to life. How ridiculous it sounds, unless given some inner meaning. Raising the dead to life or giving sight to the blind is an insignificant illusion amidst His greatest illusion [the Universe], and to say that Jesus was the Savior because He raised the dead is ridiculous. But He did raise the dead to life and many other miracles.
    "But why did He do it? If you say to impress people you are saying, in effect, “I am God, I am the savior. Had he not raised the dead, take it from me, He wouldn’t have been crucified. And this is He all wanted – planned it all, long ago [from the time He was Buddha]. I am everything, and people are not impressed with my Self, but only with miracles. Had he not perfomred miracles and on the Sabbath, no less, adding insut to injury He'd not have been charged as a black magician and crucified. But this is what He wanted all along - longed for it to fulfill his destiny as He does each time he takes human birth to assume the suffering due to humanity's ignorance onto Himself."

    November 27, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      Jesus never said "The father and I are one". The followers/writers/editors "placed" those words in his mouth. Go read the Jesus Seminar. 150 PhD scholars will tell you what he 'may" have actually said.

      November 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • gerald

      Mildred, where do you stop when you start throwing out what the bible says? The Jesus seminar is full of heretics.

      November 27, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      Well 150 PhD's to one gerry. Guess who wins.

      November 27, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • gerald

      There are far more PHD's who are not heretics. Paper doesn't make you right. I don't care how many sheepskins there are in the Jesus Seminar. They are a bunch of liberal, Johnny come lately revisionists.

      November 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
  2. Jeremy

    Among the changes, apparently the priest stands before the parish after the homily and sings 'Fat guy in a little coat...', not sure what this means.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • chief

      me either, maybe gerald the priest can come up with some cannized apologetic nonsense in latin that will make it seem holy

      November 27, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • gerald

      I think chief believed you. He's so full of hate for Catholics and the Catholic Church he will believe anything bad about us.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • Clancy

      I heard the sheeple will respond with: "You can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's @$$... No, wait. It's gotta be your bull."

      November 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  3. Predictable Reaction

    They (Organized Religion as a whole) have been losing servants year after year (by % of Life GDP) for, well, about 50 years now. It's predictable that one of their first responses will be to roll back the clock on their techniques, to a time when they were somewhat more convoluted, ambiguous, and confusing. They know it works, too – those indoctrinated in the 50s and 60s are some of the most deluded and easily controlled, even to this day.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
    • Ed, Srping, Tx

      Yeah, it was those same people that gave us the space program, PCs, IPODs, etc., etc. They were sure inventive and free thinking to be so easily led.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
  4. Rainer Braendlein

    @Mildred the Mouth

    No contemporary of Jesus or the apostles or someone, who lived some decades after them, wrote a refutation of the Bible or the New Testament.


    Jesus really worked miracles and the acounts of the apostles in the New Testament were true. People, which lived decades after Jesus, were told the stories of Jesus by their parents and grandparents and relatives. The people were aware of Jesus without any influence of the Bible. First centuries later the Bible became necessary for keeping the acounts of the biblical stories, on which the Christian doctrine bases.

    Assumed, Jesus and the apostles had deceived, it had become known and the Bible had never survived, but docu-ments, which would call Jesus impostor.

    The New Testament fits together with the historical Jesus.

    Look at the Koran. Why has the Koran survived? The Koran fits together with the historical Muhammad. No Arab, who was a contemporary of Muhammad or lived some decades after him saw a reason to write a refutation of the Koran, because the Muslim community or the Muslim Arabs were still aware of the strories of Muhammad, which their parents and grandparents had told them.

    Note: Although Muhammad was a historical person and the Koran is a true collection of statements of Muhammad, the statements of Muhammad are false in itself. For example, Muhammad really told the Arabs to slay the infidels (this is confirmed by Christian historians and the Koran), but, of course, it is not God's will that anyone kills infidels. Either Muhammad has made-up this statement or it was told him by the devil. At any rate Muhammad preached that, no matter how he got the idea.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • Charles VII

      Rainer-Well said!

      November 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      Why ?
      Because they never heard of them, or read them, or paid any attention to them. He rated a line or two in Josephus. He was a blip, a nothing on their radar.

      November 27, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Credenza

      @Mildred the Mouth – how do you account for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's Gospels???? They were WITH Jesus; John was with Jesus' Mother at the foot of the cross. And how do you account for the letters written by Peter ands Paul? They were with Him too?

      November 27, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
  5. palintwit

    Among her many other talents, Sarah Palin is also fluent in Latin. In fact, Latin is the second language spoken in the Palin household. The first , of course, is unintelligible gibberish.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • toxic zebra

      Sometimes spirits will speak in Old English.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  6. cm

    Wow! Just got wind of the changes CNN? I have been participating at mass with the new responses for weeks now. Just hard to get used to.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
  7. toxic zebra

    Latin was pretty much dead except in a few isolated places; exemplifying the degrees of archaic dogma still present, fully engaged and just now really beginning to get attention in the church. Archaic church doctrine interferes with this balance of nature with the church's archaic No-Birth Control/No-Condoms policies. The days of Jesus of Nazareth found the World filled with few and today finds it nearly filled up and church policies still geared up into the status of runaway explosive expansion and the same old archaic wheels creaking away in the human-puppy mills. Marriage has dissolved enough to include civil unions as cities compact, like too many mammals packed into a tight space... Along with population came the ways and means of birth control for the self-regulation of our numbers. Pope Benedict XI should implement the reversal of the Church's No Condoms Policy.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • toxic zebra

      Pope Benedict "XVI" Pardon the blasphemy typo -there's more latin to stumble on.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
    • gerald

      When one practices contraception they separate themselves from the creative work of God.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • chief

      re gerald..... then how do you explain priest with kids ... you are one...

      November 27, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
    • gerald

      Are you accusing me of being a child molester chief? That would be bearing false witness, i.e. your a liar. And no I am not a priest, not that that is something bad to be, except in your twisted mind that sees all of them as child molesters because of your hatred and bigotry.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • gerald

      By the way your question makes no sense in the context of my comment. But that just points to your mental illness.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      So gerald,
      Why is the Rhythm Method OK, and Birth Control not OK ? If, as your Catechism says, the INTENT is the crucial factor, is that not that SAME in both cases ? 😈

      November 27, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • toxic zebra

      Some traditionalists say "the womb is no place for a condom." The goal of philantrophy is
      not to just flood the world with population, this "constructive work" will yield another
      batch of starving beings down the road as a population bubble comes to burst. It is my
      impression that the Conscious Life of a soul begins after about the First Trimester of
      "This First Trimester is a sacred time for a woman, where she enjoins in the counsel
      with God, through prayer and she analyzes her situations including her health, age,
      drug/alcohol dependency, life situation & so on." In personal prayer the holy spirit
      answered in prayer and spiritual communication clearly showing me
      this time is set aside thus and accepted by The Holy Ghost (within the first trimester
      wherein the fetus has absolutely no conscious awareness).
      As the Second Trimester proceeds a human soul becomes consciously alive in the
      mother's womb and should remain, save only the endangerment of her life. The Holy Ghost has
      an overview. There was reasoning in this through Gods pre-planning for this from the one
      who can see the end from the beginning; The Alpha & The Omega. (In my personal opinion);
      Adoption should be considered once living awareness begins!
      This was the spiritual prophesy received approaching and surrounding the passing of
      John Paul 2nd. There is a necessity for common birth control to be available for mankind today in this critical population point.

      November 27, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • gerald

      Bucky, why is pulling out a 45 and shooting granny not okay but letting her die of old age is. If you understand that then you will understand what my response would be. But you don't. It is not a sin to abstain. It is a sin to abstain. That's silly. Of course you don't believe in sin anyway so why am I bothering. By the way hardly anyone uses the rythm method anymore. Shows how much you know.

      November 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      You have not answered the question, gerald. The INTENTION was the SAME. One was judged a sin, one was not. Very inconsistent. (BTW, in my own way, I DO believe in "sin", but not in your 3rd grade definition.)

      November 27, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      BTW, gerry, your analogy is not comparable. In mine, both examples are actively trying to prevent a pregnancy, the intent). In yours, only one side is actively trying to get rid of granny. So you get an "F" on that one. 😈

      November 28, 2011 at 12:06 am |
  8. Ruthe

    Very small changes actually. It is only to have the most accurate translation.

    November 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      Accurate translation of WHAT ? The 2nd Century Eucharist, The 4th Century Eucharist? The 10th Century Mass, the 15th Century Mass ? WHAT ??

      November 27, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
    • gerald

      Actually the scriptures. Most of the changes are out of scripture.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • chief

      accurate translation of what? latin.... who cares except the rcc

      November 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      Dominus vobis cu'm..Et cu'm spiritu tuo..is not from scripture.

      November 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
  9. happypoet

    It is going to feel a little odd for a while, because people are accustomed to the other responses. I do understand the reasoning behind it though. This is an effort to bring the vernacular mass closer to the Latin meaning. Sometimes there are meanings that get lost or altered in a translation. For example; when "Cinderella" was written down, the person transcribing it mistook the word for "fur" for another word that sounds similar in french. Thus a "fur slipper" became a "glass slipper". It is perfectly logical for them to correct any linguistic drift in the liturgy. I must say it is amusing to me how long it took for them to correct it, but then I am accustomed to how slow the church is 😉

    November 27, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
    • gerald

      Went to Mass this morning. Kinda nice to not be so much on autopilot with the responses. Made me think a bit more than usual.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm |
    • chief

      re gerald ... didnt it bother you that you have been reciting something less than perfect all these years? should you have the translators come and confess to you ?

      November 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • gerald

      Chief this only proves what a simpleton you are. If I say a ball is round and red and rubber. Then later I describe it as having an elastic constant, particular hue on the color spectrum, and give it's chemical composition is one description less perfect than the other? Maybe you don't understand physics but the answer is no. One is however deeper and more descriptive than the other. One requires deeper and less superficial thought, more understanding. I am sure what I just said went way over your head.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  10. ouirv

    Who cares if fairy tales are told in ENglish or Latin?

    November 27, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  11. Teresa

    Thus begins the undoing of Vatican II. This is a stated agenda of the conservative Popes, since John Paul II. So, look for a more formal mass, and plans to make the church more isolated from the people.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
    • gerald

      A few word changes is the undoing of Vatican II? Really? Actually the English Mass did not come out of vatican II. Paul VI allowed it after the council.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • Nick, Holly Springs, NC

      I think that spending 10s of millions if not hundreds of millions to develop and PR these dumb changes is appalling. Using words no American has ever read or said or understands. What is the point? Is God going to give us a few "points" for using these new words? What a joke.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
  12. TexasWombat

    “The mass is the center of our lives,” said Albarano.

    What a completely self-serving twist of Christ's invitation to make Him the center of our lives.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  13. J.R. Wirth

    To all the wannabe theologians out there, the Catholic church was here before you and it will be here after you. And to all the high handed, sanctimonious evangelicals on this site, your kids will know what frauds you are and will eventually get in their cars and drive to the west coast just to get away from you, like the thousands before them.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

      That was awesome.

      November 27, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
    • plato101

      Well spoken.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • N

      Cancer was there before you, and will be after you. What is the point ?

      November 27, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • chief

      re JR ... priests have been abusing kids long before you were born and most likely after you are gone.... doesnt make anything valid though?

      November 27, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • gerald

      What is that question at the end of your post cheiffy? Doesn't make any sense. Are you sure your graduated from kindergarten?

      November 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  14. letsgomets2011(and 2012!)

    @Susan: Excellent!!! That is precisely what ANY school should be teaching into their students!:) Schools today do not build character and I will bet you that there are very few teachers left that kids can actually look up TO, whether it's in a parochial or private school.

    My cousin is 61. She went to Catholic schools her entire life, including a Jesuit college. Ugh the stories she used to tell us...and the rest wre censored.

    My good friend is the same age as me - 54 - and she too has horror stories about what happened in Catholic school. That mess ended when her dad got transferred to another state and the family moved and she went to a public school instead.

    Her experience with a Catholic high school was much better than the one she had in grammar school. There was a nun who taught her how to pitch better.:) Imagine a softball-playing nun.:)

    November 27, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
  15. AGuest9

    Heartfelt prayers from cheat-sheets.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
  16. God Where Art Thou. Part III

    All religion is myth and has no scientific proof to fill in the lost logic and pieces of wild stories which are more conjecture than good fantasy.

    After a live of religion I find skepticism is the best policy. Fraud, ridiculous sightings by religious leaders is down right appalling yet it is accepted as truth and not the fiction it really is.

    Be positive but carry a big stick is my motto. The snake charmer is the front man as his friend Guido is riffling your pockets or purse.

    Magician and skeptic James Randi is daring any of you to display real magic in front of him and his foundation. If we are to believe the myths of religion they need authentic scientific proof of a miracle.

    So we have learned that religion is myth similar to a screenplay where they use some historic locations and some famous people and weave a story. At least that is what the colleges of higher learning tell us. All religion is shot with holes in the logic. Bed time stories to tell the children. We don't like filling children with false dreams or aspirations. It is wrong.

    The James Randi Foundation is waiting and is so convenient. I dare to say that you can not prove faith with science.
    Take the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of leadership transition via reincarnation. It is not scientific.

    Over a thousand people have tried to get the prize from James Randi and failed but you with your infinite wisdom can show the way. Of course if you can't prove the reincarnation myth just levitate for them. That would be a thrill. Prove them wrong.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • Joe Rioux

      Dude, don't drink the Kool-aid.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
    • agnosticNOTaKNOWitALL

      Science is really beautiful and a true means to finding true knowledge. But who living now conducting science can dispell the idea of a god? And who living can then dispell the true nature or verity of one standing religion? Maybe the Hindi are correct. Maybe the God's of Old Rome are truly watching over us. It's impossible for any science at this point to disprove a God exists. Even Stephen Hawkings can't promise you that.

      IN other words, quit bashing those of religious faith and worry about conducting your own studies that disprove that a God exists. That way you can be an Atheist Know It All.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Religion is an emotional response to the unknown. In all the history of humanity there have been thousands of gods invented. There has never been any evidence that any of those gods actually existed, but most of them have been forgotten because science explained away the need for them.

      You can believe in a god if it makes you feel better, but if you look at the universe with a pragmatic and logical mind, you can find no valid reason for believing in a supernatural higher intelligence.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:30 pm |
    • Ed, Srping, Tx

      It sounds like your answer is to fill your kids with cynicism and hopelessness. Let me know how that works out for them.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • PFTM

      Pragmatism as a philosophy seems to be a passing mood. I'm not sure it is a reliable foundation for judging eternal verities.
      Looking at the universe, however, is another story. Now there's a place to be convinced of God! I think religion is mainly motivated by common sense and an intense need to be grateful.

      November 27, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
  17. Rainer Braendlein

    Matthew 16: 18 or is the pope St. Peter’s successor?

    Matthew 16: 18:

    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Ecclesiastical history probably doesn’t know any other verse, that has been misinterpreted so often like the above verse.

    The pope reasons his supremacy mainly by the above verse.

    The context of the above verse:

    Jesus just had asked his disciples, what they would think, who he would be. There, St. Peter shoot ahead, and said: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God!”

    Jesus rejoiced over the insight of Peter and the other disciples, obviously God had started a work in them.

    The whole content of the gospels shows us that the disciples could indeed imagine to rule together with Jesus soon, therefore Jesus had to take Peter down a peg a little, after Peter had acclaimed Jesus as Christ (the king of Israel).

    Of course, it was right, Jesus from Nazareth was the Christ, the eternal Son of God, but Jesus’ time of rule had not yet come at all. God had prescribed that first Jesus had to suffer and to be rejected.

    Still, when Jesus was detained, Peter wanted to fight using a sword. He indeed could not understand that Jesus didn’t fight back. Should the rightful king of Israel be conducted away like a mean criminal? At that time Peter was not able to understand this. The decision of God that Jesus had to be turned in, in order to suffer and to die, was hidden for the disciples up to that time.

    Let us return to Mattew 16: 18. What wanted Jesus to say be the words of this verse? The following: “Peter you are Peter (with all your dreams of earthly rule), but my Church I (the Father) will build on the low (self-humilated) and humble Jesus.

    This Jesus lowered himself down to death on the cross, where he borne the sins of the whole mankind. God brings about faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit. God builds his Church on Jesus, by causing faith in him on people.

    Seemingly, Jesus has foreseen that his Church will be continuously tempted to reach out for worldly rule. However, Jesus doesn’t allow his Church to rule. To the contrary, the Church has to share the destiny of her Lord, that means, she has to suffer and to be rejected like her Lord.

    Matthew 16: 24-26:

    24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

    26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

    So, the correct interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 is contrary to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this verse. Matthew 16: 18 doesn’t reason the papacy, but rejects it: God doesn’t want a ruling church, but a suffering and low and rejected Church.

    What is the pope actually?

    He is the successor of the carnal desires (longing for rule) of St. Peter. Up to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion Peter and the other disciples had not yet understood that “Christ shall suffer”. They indeed hoped to rule together with him over the earthly state of Israel.

    Latest since Pentecost our Peter is a transformed Peter. At Pentecost the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which teached them about the true character of Christ: On earth the Church has to share Christ’s destiny to be rejected and to suffer up to Judgement Day. Of course Christ has returned to heaven and is ruler of the universe, but despite he feels the pains of his congregation. The congregation is his body in a real sense.

    The pope has a right to say: “I am the successor of St. Peter!”, but he should be aware that in fact he is the successor of Peter’s carnal desires.

    Pope, we tell you!: “You are Joseph Ratzinger, but on those rock God will build his Church!”

    I use the power of the keys: “Mr. Ratzinger as long as you claim, you would be the head of the Church, your sins are kept, and you are outcast from the Christian Church!”

    November 27, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

      wow, please go get a life.

      November 27, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      Rainer, maybe some day you will learn that using the bible to prove your bible opinions is circular reasoning, and a useless process.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
    • God Where Art Thou. Part V

      The Catholic Church is the suppressor-debaser.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm |
    • Ed, Srping, Tx

      The corrected version? According to who? You?? LOL

      November 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  18. Willl

    The Catholic Church is responsible for more harm than any other organization on earth and has been for centuries. It has lost its way, following traditions that relate to nothing steeped in ignorance and pious teachings. This is not the church that Peter built, nor the church that Christ wanted. It is corrupt and the corruption starts with this pope who is more interested in dogma than his flock. He tends not to them but to the "greater message of salvation"....perhaps one day soon he will understand that he needs to direct his attention of salvation not of man but the salvation of the ethically broken church he lead

    November 27, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      How exactly do YOU know what sort of church Jesus wanted ?

      November 27, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • tom

      By reading – Jesus said things like "it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" and surrender all your belongings and follow me. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples.
      So – do you really think He would have liked huge cathedrals adorned with gold and Popes that have people kiss their rings? Or for the Vatican to have a bank for that matter. I was raised Catholic and have been to the Vatican – the excesses are ridiculous.

      November 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
    • mt0715

      Tom, not to mention the Pope wearing Prada shoes (some pairs which sell for $600)....that's Christ-like, now isn't it?

      November 27, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • God Where Art Thou. Part IV

      You know we all complain about how political parties have ugly political campaigns. Based on religion.

      The politics of control. You want God on your side so you develop a religion to support the believe God gives all the power to the Pope who informs the world regarding Gods' needs.

      Conflict. There was already religion so the Catholics wages war throughout Europe and Euro-Asia to kill it off. Jews were wiped out since the time of the Catholic Church started the march since they claimed God was on our side.

      Nazi German, blessed by the Pope, and they funded Hitler so he could remove Jews from this planet.

      So the church is involved in American politics. Catholics support Christian Right groups to remove rights for women and to repress people with fear so they will stay conservative and under their power. This power is corrupt. George W. Bush declared that God told me to remove Saddam from power. George and Dick Cheney forced the CIA to falsify information on Iraq nuclear war capability to justify the killing of Iraq to control the oil region for democracy AKA the USA.

      November 27, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • cm

      To be honest Willl you wouldn't have your faith if the Catholic Church didn't exist. Love the way you show your appreciation. All faiths fall short – why cuz man created them. Religion is the gateway to the connection with God.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
  19. giant

    A quote from the article above... “The language of prayer should be evocative, speaking in terms of imagery and metaphor.”
    I heard someone say about religion once, a metaphore is what happened to certainty after science disproves it.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
  20. God Where Art Thou. Part II

    Want a way to an unhappy life. Remove the fun. It is easy. Just join the Catholic Church and do what they want and put your kids through their punishing S&M schools. What you end up with is a life lost, missing ten per cent of your income, twenty per cent of your friends after becoming so repressed, retentive, psycho pathetic do-gooder not able to enjoy the pleasures of life. Once married you are confused. You feel bad for the act, guilt for everything you do. Then you confess to some beast who is a child molester and partner to organized crime skimming all the church funds for gold statues to be put in the Vatican vaults for only the Pope and the Holy higher ups.

    November 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
    • Susan

      I was raised Catholic in a small, rural town. I went to a small church-run school with 70 children in grades 1-6 beginning in the mid-1970's. The school was run by elderly, extremely sweet, dedicated nuns, one of whom I now consider my guardian angel. They gave me a superior education on limited funds and I went on to a good public high school, then to a Catholic university where I was given a top notch education and they taught me the historic origins of the biblical writings. I was never taught to feel guilty or bad about myself, but to access my inner ethics and that it was my duty to do the right thing and bring good into the world through kindness to others. I'm not sure what Catholic church you experienced, but this was mine. I am no longer actively practicing, never felt the urge as an adult, but all the lessons and upbringing have made me the person I am today.

      November 27, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Willl

      @ Susan I am pleased for your rewarding experience Susan. Unfortuantly that is not always the case. I too attended grades 1-6 at the Catholivc Church. I was tormented by the nuns from grade 2 on. For the sinful infraction of playing teather ball with girls the nun who taught my class put a girls skirt over my chair, it remained there for the rest of the school year. Nuns bullied and beat us, degraded us and told us we were stuipd, drilled arcaine doctrine into us and did everything they could to rob us of our souls and our individualness. My parents, wanting to be "good Catholics" let it happen. I have no love for the church or its minnions.

      November 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • Mildred the Mouth

      Completely agree with Susan. I loved the nuns. They loved me. I had a blast in Catholic school. They taught me to think for myself. I would never be who I am today without that culture. If you submitted to the "minions", ask yourself, "why was I so passive and didn't fight back" ?

      November 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Unfortunately, Susan, we didn't share the same experience in grade school. One of our nuns was released from a mental insti.tution, another was a violent closeted lesbian who left the order and the church to live with her partner, most of the rest seemed to be cranky old ladies with rulers and pointers. There were some who were very talented and kind, the one who taught science in grades 6-8, especially. Mathematically, we were stunted, right through high school. In high school, the lay teachers usually did a better job in both math and science. The mixture of working class kids with the town's businesspeople's children and the one's whose last chance before being sent to the reform school "up the river" resulted in disrupted classes for disciplinary issues and clashes between the "haves" and the "have-nots". The senility of one of the nuns held an entire class back mathematically until she was removed. Sadly, all of this was better than any of the public schools in the area, and most of us went on to college and graduate school. How much better would we have all been if we had had better teachers? That is a question that the entire country had better answer soon.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • gerald

      Ya I see all the happy people who don't have church on the Maury Povich and Jerry Springer show. Life is so great when you throw morals away and have to have paternity tests on 4 men thinking each one is the father of your child and the fourth one fails and the woman is in tears. True story. Ya go out and have fun folks.

      November 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Gee, gerald. You watched a couple of sleazy daytime talk shows, and use that as the basis of your judgement of all non-church goers? Maybe someday you will grow up and learn to look at the real world for answers.

      November 27, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • gerald


      I point out a couple of extremes of what I see an here every day. I didn't say all non church goers behave this way but when 30% of the whites and 60% of blacks are born out of wedlock and there is 1 million abortions each year mostly by non-married people, I don't think I am as out in left field as you think. Or do you.

      November 27, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, for the love of Pete, gerald! Just because someone doesn't believe in or worship a supreme being, you surmise that he/she is just a trashy low-life? You claim you're just pointing out what you see every day among those who don't attend your church or believe what you do? I suggest you move to a better neighborhood, turn off the b oob tube, and pick up a book other than the Bible once in a while.

      November 27, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
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.