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. prophet

    we are praying for all.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
  2. Profit

    The nap is nigh.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
  3. prophet

    to be or not to be that is the question, but it is also the answer

    August 21, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Do the Ooby Dooby

      Hey baby, jump over here
      When you do the ooby-dooby I just gotta be near
      Ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby
      Ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, dooby-do-wah-do-wah-do-wah
      Well you wiggle to the left, you wiggle to the right
      You do the ooby-dooby with all of your might
      Ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby
      Ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, ooby-dooby, dooby-do-wah-do-wah-do-wah

      August 21, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The more relevant is question is "who but the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong"?
        Who was that man?

        August 21, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
  4. prophet

    ther are many apparant prophecies, they are all correct because the writer wrote them, But they are not Prophecies in the True

    Sense as is with Torah.

    no other prophecy offers the solution, they only tell you the problem.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Why is it that prophets, the most splendid of liars, tell their lies? The reward of prophets from ancient times is martyrdom – which is simply liars being killed for telling lies that people don't want to hear. I guess it's just a pathology.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
  5. Profit

    If your God is lost, I can help you find Him... trust me.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
  6. Profit

    The end is nigh and WWZ will happen. Trust not in words, but in zombie repellent which can be yours... for a small fee.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
  7. prophet

    Trust in God not me, i can only help you to find God.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      No, you can't. Simple reason is that you believe there is a god. Which means you have a pre-conceived notion of what god is. If there were any gods, I doubt that you would recognize it for what it is, because it is extremely doubtful that any god would be anywhere close to your preconception.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
      • Athy

        Isn't god supposed to look like us? Of course, that doesn't narrow it down much, does it?

        August 21, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @prophet,
      "Trust in God not me, i can only help you to find God."

      ... but... you're asking me to trust you that trusting God is the right thing.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
  8. Profit

    The Marduk Prophecy and the Epic of Gilgamesh, in their original forms are all correct. There is no error.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
  9. prophet

    whether you believe in God or not WW!!! is about to happen, its already begun and evil religions such as muslims will be the makers of it.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • bostontola

      You forgot to say, "bank on it, trust me".

      August 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Doobs

      Oh, stuff it. You're about as much a prophet as Richard Simmons.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
  10. bostontola

    Only in the last 100 years has man learned that space and time is not absolute. Man debated whether the universe was eternal and static. In this last century we have answered many debates like these. No one would assume however that science has answered even a fraction of all there is to know. Many religious people interpret that to mean that scientific knowledge as incomplete means their supersti.tions can still be valid. That would be a reasonable conclusion if the tiny bit of scientific knowledge we have revealed was not in conflict with religious beliefs. Sadly, there is a tremendous amount of factual conflict with many religions (including the Abrahamic religions) even with such a small compilation of scientific knowledge. Mankind is accelerating the accu.mulation of scientific knowledge and more conflicts are found continually. While the notion of god can survive this, the existing religions can't.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • Lawrence

      time, force, action, space, and matter (what the universe consists of) cannot exist without a cause. And to say that there was simply an infinite series of causes to support the idea of an eternal universe involves a contradiction, since infinite causal chains do not exist because it does not explain how the causal chain got started.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
      • Colin

        You said,"time, force, action, space, and matter (what the universe consists of) cannot exist without a cause."

        Bullsh.it. Why do you sky fairy believers alsways posit this false dilemma and then contradict yourselves by claiming you hokey god did not have a cause? "God did it" answers nothing. All you have done is retreat to mysticism. The law of conservation of matter-energy suggests the Universe did not have a begining.

        August 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Really? Which part? Are you saying that infinite causal chains DO exist? Or are you instead saying that the universe is self-created? We know that the universe is not eternal, there's no model for an eternal universe that works. If the universe was self-existent (which it would have to be in order to be eternal) then it would be dependant upon nothing else for its existence, and yet there is nothing in our universe that is dependant on nothing else for its existence.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
      • Richard Cranium

        So , since we do not know, why do you keep up with the god hypothesis, since that is only one of an infinite number of other possibilities, many of those possibilities with higher probabilities.

        We do not know does not equal god did it.

        August 21, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
      • bostontola

        Lawrence,
        Even if everything you say is correct (I don't think so), it doesn't affect my point, your religion's days are numbered. As I said, it doesn't disprove god, just your religion.

        August 21, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
      • bostontola

        Lawrence,
        Please also read the first line in the OP, when space and time is not absolute, how can you define cause and effect?

        August 21, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Easy, because space and time exist, they must have had a cause. Self-creation is an impossibility, and the self-existence of space is just as much fiction. Because if something is eternal, then it never changes, if it changes, then it is not eternal. Always keep in mind that impressive mathematics and theories are just fairy tales if they do not align with observable reality. In this universe that we occupy, things break down over time. If they break down, then they had a beginning.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
        • bostontola

          Lawrence,
          Your argument is right out of Alice in Wonderland. Math and science are testable, that doesn't make them right but it does disqualify them from fairy tales. Your religion on the other hand is also testable and it has failed, it is therefore false. God existence is not testable at this point. Your lack of understanding of science is apparent, you may want to take a few classes at the local community college.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          Lawrence
          Time and time again (you'll see the pun of this in a moment) You keep refering to things changing and eternity.

          You do realize that time is a dimension, right? . You keep thinking of it linearly, but that is only to your relative viewpoint. It is entirely possible, that this universe could flucuate, creating an entirely different universe that actually exists before this one? or after this one, or the same time?
          Stop thinking of time as linear, beginning, end really only relative terms.
          You keep hammering at the same wall because you haven't gotten a grasp of the basics. Stop worrying so much as to time related terms like before, after and eternity. They really don't apply in a linear way, which is why it confuses you so.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Richard, you're expressing ideas that exist only in the form of mathematics... Scientists often use a calculator in the same way that a writer of fiction uses a pen. The scientist isn't deliberately out to write fiction though – just wish fulfillment. As I have said time and time again, the math must stack up to observable reality in order to be true.

          August 21, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          Lawrence
          You are still looking at it incorrectly. Mathematics is only the language we put the things we observe into. A common ground from which to work. If something cannot be defined in terms of mathematics, we invent a new part of the language so we can then define it. It doesn't alter what we see, but the language can be adjusted to better define what is observed. Also, you cannot use things like various laws of physics, since those laws do not apply in terms of the new universe, mere microseconds after the Big Bnag, nor in the unobserved period prior to the big bang. Not knowing means we do not know. You presume that something had to make the universe but believe that nothing made the creator, so your whole argument for a creator, gets thrown out simply for the same reason of the creation of your alleged creator.

          Think about this, perhaps it will allow you to think of things in a different way.

          If god is truly all powerful, could he create an identical god?
          If no, then he is not omnipotent.
          If yes, then god could create an infinite number of gods, all equally omnipotent.

          Could god then destroy the creation of other gods.
          If no, then he is not omnipotent.
          If yes, then god could destroy all other gods, and if there is only one left, how could you know if that god is the same one you started with?
          Could god destroy himself?
          If not, again, not omnipotent.
          If yes, how do you know if he didn't already do it.

          You see, the hypothesis that there is a god creates more questions than it answers. SInce man could not possible be able to fathom a god who can violate all of the known laws of physics, be all places in the universe at once, and all of the other powers man has defined in god, how could you possibly trust anyones definition of god?

          August 21, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
        • Lionly Lamb

          Boston and Lawrence et al....

          Space is infinitely vast and is beyond science's understanding unless such is viewed as being "Spatially Infinite Nothingness"... Time itself is but a measuring tool and can only be seen as pre-history or future possibilities within the ongoing unchangeable currents of Spatially Infinite Nothingness...

          Many people seem marginally subdued within the scientific perspective that there was only a singular big bang and a solitary universe came into existence... I am under the supposition that there were unlimited amounts of big bangs being established within the unknowable vastness of Infinite Spatial Nothingness... Therefore we are found being within an infinite number of big bang made universes which are a unifying cosmological force yet unknowable to our scientifically mundane finite minds' understandings...

          August 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Richard, This question is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like "almighty" or "omnipotent." These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God's power. Power is the ability to effect change – to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7-11, 37:23; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 4:8; etc.). Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man's ability is being shown in contrast to God's), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          lawrence
          The question remains. Where did god come from, and can he create and or destroy another god, exactly like him.

          The god hypothesis is not pursued by science since there is nothing to pursue. That does not mean that god doesn't exist, It means that we cannot detect by any means available to us , any gods.

          Would we know a god if we saw one? How would we define it? Which of the thousands of gods that men have worshipped is closest to the true definition? One particular god, all gods revealed to different people in different ways?

          If there is a god, what definition is closest?Or is any current definition close? One of my biggest problems with all religions is the definition of god, to me all seem far too restrictive, most showinhg a great amount of personification, giving gods human traits and characteristics ( even going so far as to say we are made in his image, when image would only be a concept to men, not a god. If god existed when there was nothing, what possible reason could there be for image, with no light, souund, matter or energy...image is a maeaningless abstract.

          I seriously doubt any definition of god that currently exist would possibly come close to what is actually there. Is ther a god?...no, not by current definitions. Is god sentient?is the universe god? is the universe sentient? Is life in itself a form of sentience and all life is a piece of god, that without life god would not exist, and without god life would not exist?
          All fun ways to expand your minds eye on the universe, but none of those questions get us any closer to any actual answers.
          Science tries to get us closer to actual answers. I know. I am a scientist.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • Lionly Lamb

      Sired bostontola wrote, "Only in the last 100 years has man learned that space and time is not absolute."

      Space is infinitely vast and is beyond science's understanding unless viewed as being "Spatially Infinite Nothingness"... Time itself is but a measuring tool and can only be seen as pre-history or future possibilities within the currents of Spatially Infinite Nothingness...

      August 21, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • Lawrence

      to say that God doesn’t exist is to say that our universe came into existence by blind chance. Either there is a God who created the universe and sovereignly rules His creation, or everything was caused by blind chance. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. If God rules, there’s no room for chance. Make chance the cause of the universe, and you have effectively done away with God. But the problem is that chance is not a force, it is merely an expression of mathematical possibility; therefore it has no power to do anything, it cannot be the cause of any effect. The principles of thermodynamics, physics, and biology support that chance cannot be the determinative force that has brought about the order and interdependence we see in our universe—much less the diversity of life we find on our own planet. Ultimately, chance simply cannot account for the origin of life and intelligence. One of the oldest principles of rational philosophy is ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance is nothing. Naturalism is rational suicide.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        And what of the God Hyopthesis' problem of infinite regress?
        Who created the Creator?
        To believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, anthropomorphic, anthropocentric Creator made the entire universe and balanced it all just to have US in it seems to me to be the height of arrogance.
        To say "ex nihilo nihil fit – except for my God" is no different than positing that the universe formed from nothing.

        August 21, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I suppose they hope to solve their problem (of infinitely long causal chains) by having there be one cause that is eternal. They also want it to be alive, aware, and with a basically human psychology. And for it to love them to pieces too.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
        • Lionly Lamb

          Who created the Creator?

          The wholesomeness of Infinite Spatial Nothingness created all matters of celestial contrivances which in turned did establish the creations of all atomized cellular containers of living abundances...

          August 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
  11. prophet

    The Torah is all correct. Torah in Its original form is all correct.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Reality

      Obviously, some still have not read the New Torah for Modern Minds;

      origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.

      “Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. (prob•a•bly
      Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell).

      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 doc-ument.

      The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

      August 21, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
  12. Profit

    Do not follow a book of paper but Paper.
    Do not head scripture, but scrip.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • Profit

      Do not heed "head" but "heed".

      August 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
  13. Profit

    The Torah has many mistakes because it was rewritten by the Semites, but the Marduk Prophecy is all correct.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
  14. prophet

    so if so many of you don't believe there is a God then why read the bble and how do you lknow whats in it if you don't read it or are not interested in God.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Because it's great intertainment. The B S in that book is helarious.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Why read the bible? Several reasons.
      1) Christians in many ways are like an enemy, forcing their beliefs into my laws and beyond. It is wise to learn all you can of an enemy.
      2) Often, christians will note bible passages as their justification for actions. It is wise to learn these and the other passages to show the passages can be interpretted in so many ways, that many could mean whatever you want them to mean, so should not be paid attention to when making decisions.
      3) The bible is often misquoted. It is good to know when.
      4) It is fascinating from a psychological standpoint to examine why so many believe in the wild claims of the bible, and even after so many have been proven false.
      5) many other reasons.

      August 21, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
  15. prophet

    the bible is incorrect in many ways because it was rewritten by the greeks, but Torah has it written all correctly.

    August 21, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
  16. bostontola

    The bible is supposed to be the revealed word of an omniscient god. Genesis describes the creation in an ascient way, earth created before the sun, land animals created before sea creatures, no mention of atoms, bacteria, or even 1 thing that was not readily apparent to people of that time. It is filled with supersti.tious nonsense, self contradictions, and outright errors. That omniscient god sure likes to use poetic license liberally.

    August 21, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Profit

      The Bible is Hellanised lies and the only way to true enlightenment is by releasing all earthly desires and possessions.... to me.

      August 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Lionly Lamb

      Sired Boston...

      Could you kindly show me the place(s) within the Bible where your term, "omniscient god" is used..?

      August 21, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
      • bostontola

        Lionly,
        I can't. It is broadly taught in religious schools. If god existed and is not omniscient, that would be truly scary. To have that kind of power and to be fallible is terrifying. That would mean god is capable of evil (even if inadvertently). Yikes.

        August 21, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
  17. Profit

    Profit answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the True Wealth except through me."

    August 21, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
  18. Profit

    Do not believe the lies of filthy Christians and get rid of their filth called money... give it to me for cleansing.

    August 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
  19. Lionly Lamb

    Many folks share in their commonalities the wealth of understanding grief... While there are few who admonish in distaining their thought perceptions, the moralized majorities are ever so cleansed and washed thru righted transitions fragranced commonwealths... I cannot be saved nor is anyone able to or even be saved by themselves...

    August 21, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Fred

      Grieving is ok, just don't get stuck grieving. As the scriptures say, there is a time to weep and a time to laugh.

      August 21, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
      • Lionly Lamb

        Sired Fred...

        Are not atheists showing their grievous natures thru their unending nurturing of contemptuousness ideologies..? I fear God's wraths yet many an atheist scoffs in rebelling innuendoes laughing all the while ever being the tempters ridiculers... I shun and am being shunned and I hate and am ever being hated... I show folks the whereabouts of God's kingdom domains and few do reconcile me except in ridiculing waywardness.. I seek others justifiable connotations and most consider me to be as a fool... Alas I am an aloneness... Where is one's values to be so placed if others are ever to be blinded in faithlessness and bitterness valuations..? I will not be budged nor will others lights be guiding my way...

        August 21, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
        • Sam

          @Lionly, If you are talking about that 'toilet paper' or 'TP' or whateva it calls itself, ignore it. It's a useless piece of what else, toilet paper.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
  20. Profit

    There were no True believer's in Antioch... because I had not been born yet.

    August 21, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
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.