home
RSS
August 21st, 2013
08:46 AM ET

Vatican to say next month when John Paul II, John XXIII will become saints

By Jason Hanna and Hada Messia, CNN

(CNN) - The Roman Catholic Church will announce next month the date when the late popes John Paul II and John XXIII will be canonized, Vatican Radio reported Wednesday.

The canonization dates for the two former pontiffs will be announced on September 30, the radio service reported, citing Cardinal Angelo Amato.

Pope Francis announced last month that his two 20th century predecessors would be declared saints.

John Paul was pope from 1978 until his death in 2005, drawing vast crowds as he crisscrossed the globe. The third-longest-serving pope in history, died at the age of 84 after suffering from Parkinson's disease, arthritis and other ailments for several years.

Pope John XXIII was famed for calling the Second Vatican Council in 1962, which ushered in great changes in the Roman Catholic Church's relationship with the modern world. He was pope from 1958 to 1963.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Pope • Pope John Paul II • Vatican

soundoff (624 Responses)
  1. Dyslexic doG

    old John Paul and John
    we're making them a saint
    though bosses in their old boy's club
    true angels they aint

    the cover ups of heinous crimes
    enough to make you faint
    should not earn them canonization
    but a godly kick in the taint!

    August 21, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Doobs

      A good laugh is a great way to start the day! Thanks, DD.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:52 am |
  2. prophet

    so the popes use the names of the saints because the popes are not saints and so they can deceive people.

    August 21, 2013 at 11:43 am |
  3. hharri

    Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,

    all believers are saints

    August 21, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • CommonSensed

      "And all the sinners saints"

      Rolling Stones – Sympathy for the Devil

      August 21, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
  4. Colin

    The whole crazy idea of sainthood is probably my favorite Catholic superst.ition, because it involves elements of:

    (i) mind reading
    (ii) polytheism
    (iii) life after death

    The idea is that a person thinks silent thoughts about a dead person, like “Please (dead) Pope John Paul II make my cancer go away.” This dead person has telepathic powers and reads your mind (or “hears your prayers” as they call it). He then asks the Catholic God to intervene and alter your fundamental cell chemistry in order to cure the cancer. God does so and this proves that the dead person is in heaven and speaking with God.

    What utter, childish garbage, not fit for the mind of a 12 year-old. How Catholics swallow this mind numbingly stupid nonsense eludes me.

    August 21, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Have you ever read Gulliver's Travels?
      In the land of Laputa, if one wishes to get the attention of the King, one must first engage his flapper – someone whose job it is to jiggle the King's ear with a bladder on a stick.
      In the Catholic world, the Saints are God's flappers.
      For example, if you can't get into your car, God is more likely to remind you that you left your keys in the bathroom if you engage Saint Zita first.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:38 am |
  5. prophet

    should the vatican be allowed this responsibility when they have no idea what a saint is, thye even change the names of the popes to those that are better than they are so thye can deceive people.

    August 21, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Doobs

      It's their game, so they can play it however they want. In the end, a person with working brain cells knows it's all a show to distract the sheeple from the truth – that their "saints" are the worst kind of criminals, who preyed on the smallest, weakest members of their flock.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:56 am |
  6. ??

    Do people realize that less than 3% of all Catholic priest have ever been accused, not convicted, but accused of child molestation??? That is below the national average. I am not a Catholic, but, really?? Throwing out all the good, and yes they have done a lot of good in the world, because of 3% of their number is just plain old, well...typical atheist. I hope the priest who did hurt children are all found and locked up for the rest of their lives...just sayin'

    August 21, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • midwest rail

      The vast majority of outrage that I see is directed at the cover up. When can the victims expect full disclosure, instead of obstruction ?

      August 21, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Alias

      The probel for me is that they covered up these crimes.
      They knew it was happening, and did not stop it.
      It was only when too many peirsts got caught to keep it a secret that they even admitted it was going on.
      They never acted morally.
      They will not tell the truth about what they know.
      They are protecting disgusting criminals.
      They lack the basic moral values an organization would need to have my support.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:27 am |
      • ??

        Alias and Midwest You will get no argument from me. I am a victom of this crime, not a priest but a babysitter and her boyfriend. I know that the people who did what they did to me are still alive and free, because i kept a secret for 27 years. After 27 years it is impossible to prosecute someone. I would not want to sit in court and talk about it to this day. I agree they covered it up and the ones who did the covering up need to be rounded up to. My point however is still valid. The majority of priest probably never knew about this, and many, I won't give any % because no one knows, but many priest do great things for people and communities that desperately need help. That is all I am saying. I think JP did great things for children of all walks and all religions and all nationalities. I don't care if he is a saint or not...

        August 21, 2013 at 11:37 am |
        • Dippy's Aide

          * the plural of priest is priests

          August 21, 2013 at 11:48 am |
        • ??

          I also had an "i" instead of an"I". Please forgive my typos.

          August 21, 2013 at 11:53 am |
        • Dippy's Aide

          ??,

          Typos, no problem (we can't edit here), but repeated incorrect usage and misspellings cry out for a heads-up, IMHO.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
        • Alias

          ??
          Many members of the KKK do good things for children in their communities.
          The WBC donates to charities.
          The RCC does not get a pass on its lack of morals because some members do good things.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
        • ??

          Alias, never said they deserve a pass. I actually said the perpetrators should be punished. I also said those that covered it up should be punished, a deep pit filled with Sh. t would be perfect. As for your KKK claim, one, they might help whites and no one else; two, for this claim I will ask for your evidence of KKK doing good in a community.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
        • Doobs

          Alias, where was it reported the "entire organization" was involved in the cover up?

          Apparently, you're not clever enough to use Google.

          "Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'
          London Evening Times – 30 September 2006

          "The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

          In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

          The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it.

          And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

          The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time.
          The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen.

          It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend.

          It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.

          Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith.

          An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

          Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis — Latin for The Crime of Solicitation — which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal.

          It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

          Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

          Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme:
          "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

          And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says:
          "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

          "When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another.

          So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place.
          This is happening all over the world."

          The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.

          The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14.

          He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."

          August 21, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
        • Doobs

          Dang, misfire, and a long one, too.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
        • Alias

          ??
          Your arguement seems to suggest that so long as there are a few priests who did not have first hand knowledge of any crimes, the church should not be criticized as a whole.
          I dissagree.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
        • Zombie God

          The cover up starts at the top...the head is diseased, therefore the body is.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The RCC has proven that its pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child se.xual abuse are the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its as.sets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, are subordinated to these priorities.
      According to the John Jay report, 918 of 1872 (49%) substantiated allegations of abuse against Catholic clergy were addressed by sending the priest off for psychiatric counseling and then moving him to another parish, with nary a whisper to law enforcement. This number does not include priests relocated for reasons other than charges of se.xual impropriety.
      1. In 1962, The Vatican relased the 'Crimen Sollicitationis', which outlined how the church is to handle accusations of se.xual impropriety against clergy.
      The stickiest point for most people is that not only was the doc.ument itself Top Secret for decades, it explictly stated that anybody involved in this type of investigation, including the accuser and potential witnesses, are sworn to secrecy regarding any and all details, upon penalty of excommunication (a fate worse than death for the devout).
      This preoccupation with secrecy significantly slowed the investigative process – the backlog of referrals to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for action against se.xually abusive priests is so large that it takes 18 months to get a reply.
      Until all allegations of abuse are immediately referred to local law enforcement, the RCC will be viewed as an evil, predatory inst.itution by a lot of people – not just "typical atheists".

      August 21, 2013 at 11:35 am |
      • ??

        Doc, I agree they need to report all cases!!! BUT, to be fair, only a small % of the organization is involved, why are we slamming the entire organization??? I would contend that it is as much to do with your and others desire to end religion as much as it is concern for children.

        August 21, 2013 at 11:44 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          It has nothing to do with a desire to end religion.
          That the number of perpetrators was statistically small is not the point.
          Refer to my root post – the entire organization made it official policy to keep everything secret.
          Since the policy was written and implemented by Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict, it is obvious that the RCC hierarchy think there's nothing wrong with telling victims that they'll go to Hell if they talk to anyone about what was done to them.
          They hide the perpetrators and silence the victims as a matter of official policy.
          ANY organization with such a mindset, be they a Church or not, should be condemned.

          August 21, 2013 at 11:57 am |
        • ??

          Doc, once again I agree. I also agree that Rat slinger was a terrible pope and a bad idea for the RCC. I hesitate typing this, because it will be taken out of context by some, but the atheist community has got to be grateful for this scandal as a tool to further the agenda of ridding the world of religion. NOT grateful that kids got molested, btw.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
        • Alias

          Let me try to put this another way – If a politician does a lot of good things, and accepts bribes from the mafia, they should be put in jail. Even if on ly a few priests are monsters, I blame the entire organization that supports and protects them.
          If my company were to cover up similar crimes, I would tell te police/public everything I knew and find another company to work for. Even if it was only 3% of my coworkers ruining children's lives.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
        • ??

          Alias, where was it reported the "entire organization" was involved in the cover up?

          August 21, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
        • Doobs

          " I hesitate typing this, because it will be taken out of context by some, but the atheist community has got to be grateful for this scandal as a tool to further the agenda of ridding the world of religion. NOT grateful that kids got molested, btw."

          You should have gone with your first instinct. That is one of the most offensive, malevolent, rancorous things I've ever read about the issue.

          Do you think atheists are grateful for 9/11, too, so we can continue our "agenda of ridding the world of religion"?

          August 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
        • A Frayed Knot

          ??,
          " ...the atheist community has got to be grateful for this scandal as a tool to further the agenda of ridding the world of religion."

          In that case, also add: the Protestants, Muslims and any others who don't like the Catholics.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
        • ??

          Doobs, nice job twisting what I said. Did you read the statement where I said that I don't think atheist are happy kids got hurt???? I said atheist are happy to have any issue which is destructive to organized religion.
          If this is the worst thing you have ever read on a blog, you must be new to blogs. But thanks for the twisting.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
        • ??

          Frayed Knot...thank you! I would agree with you. Doobs wasn't quite bright enough to get my point.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
        • A Frayed Knot

          ??,

          Actually, there is no "atheist community", for one; and for two, the Church *has* in fact damaged itself by these crimes. They happen to be the largest purveyor of the old supernatural legends and superst'itions, and this scandal is only one means of discrediting them.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
        • Doobs

          Doobs, nice job twisting what I said. Did you read the statement where I said that I don't think atheist are happy kids got hurt???? I said atheist are happy to have any issue which is destructive to organized religion.
          If this is the worst thing you have ever read on a blog, you must be new to blogs. But thanks for the twistingi>

          I didn't twist anything. I read your pitiful little disclaimer. It's meaningless.

          I'm sorry all those people in the towers were killed, but now we can hate Muslims even more! Woo hoo!

          I'm sorry those children were raped, but now we've really got something on the RCC! Yippee!

          Try actually thinking about what you're saying before you put something so stupidly false in a post.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
      • Doobs

        Alias, where was it reported the "entire organization" was involved in the cover up?

        Apparently, you're not quite clever enough to use Google.

        Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'
        London Evening Times – 30 September 2006

        "The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

        In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

        The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it.

        And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

        The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time.
        The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen.

        It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend.

        It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.

        Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith.

        An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

        Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis — Latin for The Crime of Solicitation — which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal.

        It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

        Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

        Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme:
        "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

        And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says:
        "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

        "When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another.

        So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place.
        This is happening all over the world."

        The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.

        The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14.

        He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."

        August 21, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
        • Doobs

          This was meant for ??.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • ME II

      @??,
      "Throwing out all the good, and yes they have done a lot of good in the world, because of 3% of their number is just plain old, well...typical atheist."

      Are you claiming a correlation between the 3% accused of child abuse and some made-up 3% atheist priests?

      If that is your claim then, please cite any reference whatsoever for any correlation between child abuse and Atheism.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:40 am |
      • ??

        ME II ?????????????????????????? No I am not claiming anything about atheist "priest"? What? Atheist have priest now? JK I know they don't.

        August 21, 2013 at 11:48 am |
      • ME II

        @??,
        "... because of 3% of their number is just plain old, well...typical atheist."

        Then what exactly were you saying with this?

        August 21, 2013 at 11:53 am |
  7. prophet

    should the vatican be allowed this responsibility when they have no idea what a saint is.

    August 21, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • SuperDuper

      You are correct!

      August 21, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • ME II

      Why do you care what the RCC claims?

      August 21, 2013 at 11:35 am |
  8. prophet

    vatican declare child abuse cover up a saint

    August 21, 2013 at 11:16 am |
  9. Reality

    Time for all those "made in China" JP II rosaries, T-shirts and baseball hats to hit the RCC profit center.
    .

    August 21, 2013 at 11:09 am |
  10. Alias

    Proof positive that the RCC does not care about the children they abused.
    Since I love irony, I'm going to use the christian definition and call it a FACT.

    August 21, 2013 at 11:03 am |
  11. prophet

    at last there is a charity that has been set up to bring most if not all the perpetrators to justice, the vatican is evil and they know it, they don't even do whats in the bible, they have written their own doctrines, which are of course lies to deceive people.

    August 21, 2013 at 11:03 am |
  12. prophet

    technically then most of the clergy in the vatican should therefore be considered for sainthood if covering up child abuse is considered for sainthood

    August 21, 2013 at 10:59 am |
  13. prophet

    vatican declare sainthood for child abuse cover up

    August 21, 2013 at 10:57 am |
  14. prophet

    vatican to give child abuse cover up sainthood

    August 21, 2013 at 10:55 am |
  15. palintwit

    Sarah Palin can be the patron saint of stupidity.

    August 21, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • CommonSensed

      Science is the work of the devil!

      Or something like that, she said...

      August 21, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
  16. ME II

    What? Wait, I was unprepared for this.

    I wish they had announced when they would announce the date for announcing when the canonization would occur.

    /sarcasm

    August 21, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • ME II

      p.s.
      "Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree [i.e.announcement] regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. " (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm)

      August 21, 2013 at 10:39 am |
  17. Lawrence

    Just another thing that the Catholic church got wrong... According to the Bible, every Christian is a saint. They were first called saints, or set-apart-ones, then later at Antioch they began to be called Christians, or Christ's Ones. If the Catholic church would put Scripture in its proper place (Sola Scriptura), then much of their errors would be removed.

    August 21, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • Rarimundo Santos

      In fact, each of us is called to be a saint. However, sometimes it takes a long path so that one becemes a saint. And we know for sure that not everyone becomes a saint. So the Catholic Church is correct in this point. As for the Sola Scriptura, not even the bible claims it to be correct. There's no support in the bible for such understanding. Sola Scriputra alone cannot explain Scriptures. It is necessary to pay attention to waht apostolic tradition teaches so that we can understand many points in the bible. So again the Catholic Church is correct in its teachings.

      August 21, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      If Sola Scriptura is the correct approach, how did the faith survive and worship in the centuries preceding the canon?

      August 21, 2013 at 10:42 am |
      • Reality

        And now proceeding to the 21st century and what we know:

        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
        Jerusalem.

        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.

        (References used are available upon request.)

        August 21, 2013 at 11:13 am |
      • ME II

        @Bill Deacon,
        Simple, because there obviously is no requirement for faith to be true in order for it to survive. Many people have faith in things that are not true.

        August 21, 2013 at 11:50 am |
      • Lawrence

        This is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

        August 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
        • A Frayed Knot

          Scripture/Schmipture – miscopied, mistranslated, misunderstood, misinterpreted and manipulated hearsay stories. What a silly god you have there – to communicate so poorly.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • Lawrence

          A Frayed Knot – obviously you've spent no time in textual criticism. If you look at the sheer volume of manuscripts that now exist of the Biblical writings, you will see that it is quite easy to determine that the Scripture that we now have is unchanged since the original authors penned them, and is the most accurate of any ancient manuscripts.

          To compare with Homer’s Iliad for example, we only have about 500 manuscripts for this story, and they were written some 500 years after the story was originally written.

          The New Testament alone has more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts written in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian. These manuscripts exist in partials or wholes with the dates of these manuscripts range from 125AD (the John Ryland's manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.

          There are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
        • G to the T

          "you will see that it is quite easy to determine that the Scripture that we now have is unchanged since the original authors penned them, and is the most accurate of any ancient manuscripts." Sorry but this the FUNNIEST thing I've read on these forums in a while.

          Not only do we not know who the "original" authors were, most reputible biblical scholarship (since the turn of the last century at least) have acknowledge that we DO NOT HAVE anything like the "original autographs". In fact, one study came up with there being more differences in the copies they had then there were words in the current version.

          This was one of the main impetices behind the KJV as a way to get the "holy spirit" to aid them in "reconstructing" the "original" bible, even though no such thing ever existed...

          August 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
        • Johnny

          To try in suggest that the bible has changed over time is absurd. The entire story of Jesus rising from the dead in Mark was added at least a century after it was first written.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
        • Lawrence

          G to the T: "Most reputable Biblical Scholarship" I'm sorry, but that's just not true. those "biblical scholars" you are most likely referring to are either the "Jesus Seminar," or some form of gnostic scholarship which seems to be gaining strength again these days. Those people believe in heresies that have long ago been dispelled, but they are clinging to the old ideas in order that they may cast doubt on the perspecuity of Scripture. And in at least your case, the doubt stuck. Find true scholars who actually have done their homework on textual criticism, not just anyone with letters after his name. After all, merely a degree doesn't give you authority on a subject.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
        • Johnny

          Let me try that again:

          To try and suggest that the bible has NOT changed over time is absurd....

          August 21, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
        • G to the T

          Sorry – wrong again Lawrence – I've been studying biblical history and textual critisism for years (and no, not the Jesus Seminar).

          August 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
    • Lawrence

      Sola Scriptura
      Proverbs 30:5-6 – "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar"
      Isaiah 8:20 – If someone speaks not according to the word of God, it is because there is no light in them
      Revelation 22:18-19 – I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
      2 Timothy 3:14-17 – the sacred writings which are able to give wisdom to salvation
      Colossians 2:18-19 – truth does not come from modern “visions”
      Galatians 1:6-10 – if anyone teaches another gospel, he is accursed
      2 Peter 3:14-16 – intentionally distorting Scripture is a damning sin
      Romans 15:4 – Scriptures alone give hope
      1 Corinthians 4:6 – do not go beyond what is written

      “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other."
       Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, 1521

      Jude 1:3 – Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
       The message of Jesus was given once for all, there is no new revelation
      Psalm 19:7-9 – The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. (See also Psalm 119)
       Nothing other than scripture is needed, new revelations are false and tradition is nothing.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:46 am |
      • Raimundo Santos

        All the citings and verses you wrote do not say that ONLY the bible is the ONLY source of the Christian faith. In fact, it was the Church that turned the bible possible the way we have it today. The first Christians, who suffered persecution and died for the faith, did not have the bible, they only followed what was preached to them. So I repeat: there's nothing in the bible that claims that ONLY the bible is only source of the Christian faith. It was the apostolic tradition that gave us a canon of the bible. I agree that the bible is the true source of the Christian faith as well as the oral tradition, the teachings that are not exactly written in the bible. Therefore, there's no support for Sola Scriptura in the bible. You don't find any words like ONLY THE BIBLE in the bible. On the contrary, there's a teaching in the apostles' letters to hold the traditions that were tought by the apostles. One cannot understand the Scriptures without the light given by the apostolic tradition. The same happens with judaism. The written Torah has the same value as the Oral Torah.

        August 21, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Mark 7:5,8 – “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.

          The traditions of men are NOT on equal grounds with Scripture. All that tradition accomplishes is to perpetuate man’s inadequate means of obtaining truth. When the tradition of man is in direct violation of Scripture, it is sinful.

          Colossians 2:8 – See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

          Traditions of men that would fall into the "sinful" category are: purgatory, sacraments imparting grace, veneration of saints and angels, mariology, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, indulgences, treasury of merit, magisterium, et cetera ad nauseum.

          None of these are backed up by Scripture, and yet are believed by Catholics. This is what happens when one strays away from Scripture as the sole source for doctrine.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Isaiah 8:20 – To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this, it is because they have no light.
          Isaiah was speaking of the written word of God being the test for doctrine. When the Apostles would come later and speak of ttradition, they were speaking of that which followed scripture, not what was in opposition to it.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Lawrence

      In the words of reformer Martin Luther, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that “what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed.”

      August 21, 2013 at 11:47 am |
      • G to the T

        So you hold no religious beliefs that are extra-biblical? I find that pretty hard to believe. Protestantism today wouldn't exist if not for the traditions of the RCC that it built itself on. All of the most extreme groups died out precisely because they couldn't they attempted the impossible task of just following what the bible says.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm not a catholic, but at least they seem a bit more honest about the nature of their belief.

        August 21, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
        • G to the T

          Examples – the dating for Christmas, the celebraiton of Easter, three wisemen, holy trinity, disposition of babies that die before baptism, etc. Sure you can try to point to maybe one obscure verse here and there but without the RCC establishing those ideas in the first place, no one would be able to read the bible (whith NO previous coaching) and come out with anything resembling the christianity followed by most people today.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
      • Rarimundo Santos

        Let's put things this way: there different interpretations for the Scriputure, among them, the interpretation of the Catholic Church. If ther's lots of different intrepretations leading to different "churches", and all of them are accepted, why shouldn't the Catholic interpretation be considered correct? However, among all those interpretations that spread throughout the world, I prefer to stay with the interpretation tha comes from the very beginning: the interpretation of the Catholic Church. Until the 16th century there was basically only one interpretation: the interpretation of the Catholic Church. If you don't accept it as correct, you'll have to deny 1600 years of Christian Church. Or perhaps you think the Christian faith began only after the 16th century? And more: it was the Catholic Church that gave us the canon of the bible as we know it today. At the time it was defined there were no other church to take part in it. So things are just like this. I repeat: one cannot interpret the Scriptures without the light and solid information given by the apostolic tradition. P.S. It seems to me that you are misinterpreting what is said about tradition in the gospels. In fact, Jesus was not criticising tradition iteself once tradition is part of humankind's nature, history and culture and affairs. Jesus was criticizing the hipocrisy of the pharisees, who preferred to attain to the custom, the habits, the tradition of for example washing disches, etc, but neggleted what was most important: love, charity, forgiveness and justice. I think you should study more about the meaning of tradition. Otherwise you'll question all the history of humanity, which is full of tradition, history, culture. Interpretations of this kind are prohibited in the bible, which forbiddens private interpretations of the sacred texts.

        August 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    I don't think JPII's first "miracle" should count since the person he "cured" wound up relapsing.

    August 21, 2013 at 9:51 am |
    • Athy

      Unless he met the statute of limitation on relapses.

      August 21, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
  19. Dyslexic doG

    Sainthood: like one of those lifetime achievement awards they give out at the Academy Awards for actors who have made lots of movies but never one an Oscar.

    STEP 1: Get some delusion religious zealot to claim a miracle
    STEP 2: ignore all evidence that shows it was not actually a miracle
    STEP 3: hey presto, you have another saint.

    what a crock!

    August 21, 2013 at 9:44 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      won

      August 21, 2013 at 9:45 am |
  20. desert voice

    God bless these two would-be Saints. They were a great asset to humanity!

    August 21, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      I ddn't know conpsiracy to protect child molesters was the job of saints.

      August 21, 2013 at 9:36 am |
    • tallulah13

      Or at least they were very popular with the people under their control. Didn't do much for the rest of the world, but hey! You can't have everything.

      August 21, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • truthprevails1

      All the hits, never the misses and in the case of the RCC, those misses are big...sad really. I guess the harboring of pedophiles means nothing to you people.

      August 21, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Jim

      Obviously you are being sacastic. That assumes you do not actually believe covering up for hundreds (if not thousands) of child molestators is "a great asset to humanity".

      August 21, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • Alias

      Other than that little issue with the children, look at how successful their reigns as king were.

      August 21, 2013 at 11:23 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
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.