Roman Catholic Coverup

1. 60

   Dave Mathewsposted 12 years ago

   There exists in print, manuscripts of Holy Gospels one written by Thomas, and another written by Mary Magdelene. The Roman Catholic Church declares them as heresay and has forbidden these manuscripts to be transcribed, translated or incorporated into the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
   What is the Roman Catholic Church afraid of? What is it trying to coverup? By forbidding mankind the benefit of the knowledge recorded in these manuscripts and banning the translation of these important holy texts the Roman Catholic church involves itself in a conspiracy to coverup documentation vital to Christianity and vital to the teachings of Christ Jesus.
   
   What is the Roman Catholic Church conspiring to hide and why is it so adamant about keeping these documents locked up,untranslated, and unavailable to mankind? What has the Roman Catholic Church done, that it fears?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Stacie Lposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      it s all because of power hungry men ....

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't doubt that power hungry men decided to hide these Gospels in the beginning, but the Roman Catholic Chruch continues to cover up the written works of these people, who were closest to Jesus Christ Himself. I must be more than what we think.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      glmclendonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Dave, I thought these things had been printed. I was told told 5hey did not pass the test ... help.
      
      Stay Well

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         glmclendon: The test according to whom The Roman Catholic Church? The church is the one trying to suppress their authenticity to hide what is in them. There is even a Gospel of Judas Iscariot, that is believed to hold apostolic inside information revealed by Jesus to Judas, but not disclosed to any of the other apostles.

         replyreport
   3. 58

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If they are hiding something, and I believe they are, it would be something that will shake their doctrine to the core.
        I believe that the ninth chapter of Daniel holds the key to opening the door to all of our questions.
      
        This chapter describes an event that is said to have happened in 538 BC.
      
        Daniel had been praying for a few weeks when Gabriel came to him and said.
      I have come to give you skill and understanding. 
        When you started praying THE COMMANDMENT  went out.
      
        And from the time the commandment goes forth it shall be 62 weeks until they kill the Messiah.
      
         This seems to most people to be an unimportant statement; but is it?
         I believe this establishes a standard necessary if we are going to understand prophesy.
         From the time Gabriel says this until the Messiah is killed, approx 568 years pass.  SOooo   62 of Gabriels weeks is equal to approx 568 of our years.
      
         A week would then be approx 9.13 to 9.16 of our years.
      When we use this equation everytime a prophesy mentions a specific period of time we begin to see a chronoligical order in the prophesies.
      
        I believe that this is what the RCC does not want to be revealed.
      That Jesus didn't lie when he said, THIS generation shall not pass till All these things shall be fulfilled.
      
        Without this little tidbit of information concerning a week in prophesy being equal to approx 9.13 of our years, it is impossibel to use any form of analitical process when attempting to understand prophesy.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This is most interesting and it helps to clear up alot of things that till now have made little sense. Thank you.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thank YOU Dave
              It just makes since to me that the Abrahamic covenant‎ was giver to the seed of Abraham  Along with the covenant came prophesy such as IF You do not quit doing what you are doing ...  such and such is going to happen
              These OT prophesy was given to them OT people cause they applied to them under the old covenant.
              Jeremiah began his ministry around 626 BC.  His message to the Hebrews was that if they didn't turn from their ways ?  God was going to give them over to the king of Babylon.  And that Jerusalem will lay desolate for 70 years which it was, and that the temple will also lay wasted for 70 years.
              In 605 BC, Babylon conquered Jerusalem and took ALL the children of the kings and princes hostage. Also most all of the tradesmen so that the Jewish army could not be rebuilt. How many I do not know but I understand there were very many.
              There was a second deportation in 597 BC in which EZEKIEL was taken to Babylon.
              God spoke to his saying that the Hebrew people will someday be gathered together in Jerusalem.
            
              There came another uprising and the Babylonian army was again sent to Jerusalem, at which time the city and Temple was totally destroyed. (586 BC)
              ###
            EDIT
            Any mention of the temple being rebuilt was talking about it being built the second time. There is no mention of it being built a third time. Cause the temple of God is in our hearts.  ###
             
            Daniel received visions and Gabriel interpreted them that there will be four kingdoms to be given dominion over that Hebrew Nation
            
               Babylon, Persia and Grecia were named however at this time the small kingdom was just then coming into existence. Though the fourth kingdom was not given a name, it was certainly said to be the FOURTH kingdom.
            
               Approx 67 years after Daniel was taken to Babylon he receives a message that the command to rebuild Jerusalem had gone forth and construction began a few years later.
            
               Just seems to me that during the 200 years before the RCC came together the point of view concerning these prophesy had changed.
            
              I think this is what the early RCC was attempting to hide. And it has been hidden for so long they don't know what is in there.

            replyreport
   4. 59

      Kiss andTalesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      People seem to hide the truth of matters , because it causes them inconveniences, 
      They know that the truth of subject matter
      can cause a lot changes in how people view matters. If they are benefitting in money or power over the people , they will hide the truth.
      The point is God almighty tells people the truth
      They refuse to believe him over imperfect humans.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   I don't know, Dave.  I don't know a lot, but haven't the gospels of Thomas and Mary been translated and printed?
   
   Either way, I would love to get into the Vatican to snoop around. Knowledge is power and they've got more information hidden away in that place than anyone has a right to have.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes Emile, these gospels and very many other documents of the time have now been published and are available on Amazon. Dave is correct in his observations of the Catholic Church; it only included those writings it deemed as being the word of God in the NT by committee. Now seeing as much of the protestant and evangelical Church believes that the Catholic Church isnt even Christian, how ironic that they yet trust the Catholic church of the dark ages on what constitutes the word of God.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, Protestant churches are even pickier than the Catholic church, rejecting the deuterocanonical texts. I didn't even know what a Maccabees was until I converted.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I've read the gospel of Thomas. Interesting stuff, but wasn't that written 3-4 hundred years after the fact?

         replyreport
         1. 78

            DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The Gospel of Thomas is thought to have been written in the 2nd or 3rd century by the Gnostics. And with the books of Peter 1 and 2, Jude and a few others written in the 2nd century as well, it would seem that the gospel of Thomas should hold as much authority...

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Wouldn't it be nice to hold one manuscript in your hands that was written while they were traveling around. Or, right after the events they talk about. If I could travel through time that's the first place I'd go. Just to see what the heck really happened.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You and me both...I would love to see the events first hand...

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Me too, love to be there!
                     
                     Mind you I could write a good account of what happened here on earth during the 1960's as I was there, seeing what the youth revolution produced, watching Vietnam happen, hearing about the JFK assassination, and all that.
                     
                     Maybe I could write an even better account now, having a perspective that has been gained over the last 40 years, from observation of the changes that have taken place as a result of what happened?
                     
                     As for Dave's hidden books, well Daniel tells us that some stuff would be 'hidden from us until the end times' (paraphrased)so who knows?

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Maybe one day we will see...Not sure if it will be in our lifetime or not...But I would be interested when it does happen...

                        replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        John I know where your coming from, but I'm not sure where you are going to. These Gospel Manuscripts are extremely important, especially if they hold any new teachings from the "Master" to his people.
                        
                        Thomas as well as Judas, were extremely close to the Lord, and he may have confided in them things that he would not or could not confide in Peter with.
                        The very fact that Peter, being Jesus first picked, and the first to acknowledge Jesus as the "Son of God", he not having a Gospel, only letters, speaks volumes regarding whom Jesus really trusted with the truth.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Peter does have a "Gospel" it is called the Apocolypse of Peter and was included in many 2nd century church "bibles"/Readings

                           replyreport
                        2. 70

                           aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Dave I am saying that MAYBE these books were locked to us until now, nothing against them, as I have never seen them, but I will look.
                           
                           However (as an afterthought) scripture also tells us that we will be sent deception, to fool even the elect, IF that were possible, so I will read and let the Holy Spirit guide my understanding.

                           replyreport
                        3. 73

                           cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Regarding"New"teachings,you've had the Flag all along.The end of the book of John clearly tells us
                           "These are but a Few of the things Jesus said and did.If you put them all into books they would fill the whole world",a clear statement that much more exists.
                           Valentinian Gnostic's,Sethian Gnostic's,The Unshakable Race all are as close to the truth as the the 27 books of the orthodox Christian bible.Yes,I said 27 books.Absconding with the Torah and calling it part of the bible while reviling the Jews as Jesus killers was one of the low points of the Orthodox Church.
                           Keep in mind that modern Christianity has its Root in Catholicism.
                           All modern versions of the Bible are reformed from versions that were in Catholic hands,subjected to editing and distortion for a thousand years.None of the originals survived.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              That is what I am talking about!  The Catholic church is the Mother of All Christian denominations.
                              
                                And that which the church was hiding or was in error pertaining to;  is still hidden.

                              replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Eh, the Bible says IF all the things that Jesus did were to be put into books, it was supposed that the world could not contain them.
                              
                              It doesn't say those things WERE put into books!
                              
                              I don't understand why people keep looking for MORE, when they have the Word available to them, and they often can't even seem to understand THAT much of it.....
                              
                              I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church's teachings at all.  There is much error in that.  But I'm not believing that there is even a valid "Gospel of Judas" nor a valid "Gospel of Mary".   And I'm not waiting for the Catholic Church to reveal any of their hidden manuscripts and such!  The Catechisms their Popes have written are erroneous enough.   I'll stick to the Bible that I know and which proves itself over and over.  And IF it was the "Catholic Church" that "gave" us the Bible (which I'm not even sure of anyway!), then it is GOD who I thank for it, not any natural Church.   He is able to preserve His word, no matter how many men may think they can take credit for it.
                              
                              And just for the Truth's sake, the Apostles who penned the Gospels were the beginning of the true Church;  they weren't Roman Catholic at all; Peter wasn't Catholic.   They were simply the first Christians.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 hookedhuntressposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Amen sister!

                                 replyreport
                              2. 73

                                 cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Which of the myriad of versions do you read?The KJV is,with out a doubt,the most distorted and corrupt version.King J had it done so he could get divorced,and gave his guys a Deadline to boot..A poor motive which resulted in the fiction called the KJV.Do some research and you'll find None of the apostles wrote M M L and J.They were assigned those titles some forty to fifty years after being written.The universal[Catholic]church had control by then.Also,two of the gospels were[supposedly]written by people who worked for apostles.
                                 Those fundamentalist blinders you wear seem to preclude your even considering the findings of scholars who spend there entire lives researching this"Modern"version of Catholicism you call Christianity.
                                 You express what you believe very well...how about a few facts so we of little faith HA! can believe as well.
                                 ahhh,here come a bunch of bible quotes to prove the bibles true...

                                 replyreport
3. 73

   cheaptrickposted 12 years ago

   "I said to the savior,lord,I saw you in a vision today.The savior replied,bless you that you did not waver at the sight of me.I asked the savior,lord,how do we see a vision,through the spirit or through the soul?The savior answered saying,neither through the spirit nor the soul but through the mind,which lives between the two,There is the treasure"Gospel of Mary M.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hiya Cheaptrick, nice to see you here!
      
      Neat quote also...
      
      John

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If that is a quote from the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, surely it is only just a paragraph there must be more.
      
      There are supposedly 14 Quotes in the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly more that we are not being permitted to know, and maybe should be incorporated into the book we today call the Bible. Who Knows?

      replyreport
      1. 73

         cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes,it is only a paragraph.Unfortunately only a few of the leafs of Mary's gospel survive,about 20 in all.
         The gospel of Thomas contains 114 quotes,I have the English translation.I don't understand why your not permitted to know?
         These are but 2 of 52 Christian Gnostic books found at Nag Hammadi Egypt.Translations are not only available but free on line...just Google,it's that easy.
         I am a bit confused however.We Gnostic's have traditionally been labeled Devil worshipers by the orthodox church.You are firmly on Gnostic ground with these books.

         replyreport
   3. 75

      jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Dean!

      replyreport
4. 78

   ii3rittlesposted 12 years ago

   The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for all these so called Holidays (Holy Days)... Christmas, Christmas Eve, Easter.... All Pagan holidays, not Christian, not Catholic. Its also in the 10 commandments not to worship statues and other people OTHER THAN GOD. Who are they trying to fool?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed the Roman Catholics are responsible for man wrongful things including wrongful teachings. God will have His day with that particular church one day.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I was indoctrinated with the same lies when I growing up, but then I bothered to learn what the Catholic Church is really like.
      
      The church does not condone worshipping an image. The images exist to provide a visual reference for our minds as we reflect on the real people they represent in prayer and meditation. Some Catholics take it too far and that is on them; it is not a church practice.
      
      And no one prays to saints. Catholics ask saints to pray TO God WITH them, just as any Christian might ask a family member or friend to pray for them. Do people lose their ability to pray just because they're in Heaven?
      
      And while I understand that the date of Christmas was borrowed from a pagan holiday, along with certain traditions bein adapted (none of which conflict with Bublical teaching), where on earth did you get that Easter is a pagan holiday? Its date is derived from the relation of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection to Passover as documented right in the gospels, not from anything pagan.
      
      To me, the real abomination against Christianity is denominationalism.
      
      
      
      All branches of Christianity are Christian, and all are part of the same body. Our differences are still variations of the same faith. Yes, some branches have things wrong, but I would wager my life that there's not a single one who has everything right either.
      
      There's not a single church that I myself completely agree with--I even take issue with some aspects of the Catholic church even though I'm a convert. But what does it matter? I will die still believing SOMETHING wrong about God even if I spend my whole life trying to get it right. Everyone will. But we share the most important parts--the holiness of God, the divinity of Christ, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of the dead into eternal life--so the least we can do is respect one another for it.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Amen, I was also of the mind that the RCC was evil personified, but God opened those closed eye when I made many friends in Catholicism who I realised were just as passionate about Christ as I am.
         
         We must remember that God has hidden His people amongst ALL the denominations, I rant against Churchianity, all the time, probably too much, but it was God that allowed it to happen, and His 'remnant' are scattered through all denominations.
         
         There IS only ONE body of Christ, and all are either in it or not, no matter where they belong as a member.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            ii3rittlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I honestly think the biggest issue it that religion separates us from God. There is only ONE God and only one man that saved us from eternal damnation by God's will; Jesus Christ.
            
            I think over centuries religion has only confused people. There are religions for everything and anything now. Whether you call God - Allah, Buddah, or whatever you may call Him, He is still our creator. The biggest thing that sets all religions apart is Jesus. Without Jesus we are all damned to hell.

            replyreport
5. 59

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   There is also a Gospel of Judas, which originates from the first century A.D., making it as authentic as any other gospel.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed...So why didn't that gospel make it into the bible...
      
      I wonder what other "teachings" have been excluded...

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I know this and also one from Phillip. It seems like the Roman Catholic Church wishes to try and control Christianity today just like it tried back in the time of Caesar.
      
      The Romans couldn't and can't dominate the world with their power like Caesar did, so it decided if you can't beat them join them so Rome takes over Religion in an effort to control something, anything, only with religion they have been successful thus far.
      
      Has anyone noticed that Peter, the first chosen, the first to acknowledge Jesus as the "Son of God, the Christ" he has no Gospel, only letters. What's with that?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         There is an Apocolypse of Peter...not really a gospel per se...but it did circulate many of the churches in the starting sometime in the late 1st to early 2nd century

         replyreport
6. 60

   hookedhuntressposted 12 years ago

   Personally, I think we know what we know, when God wants us to know it.
   I don't think the RCC,man or the devil can keep anything from us that God wants us to know or have.
   
   The RCC is NOT more powerful than God.
   
   If Almighty God wants his children to know something,we will.. and nothing or no one on earth can keep us from it.
   
   

   replyreport
7. 68

   gregb4hopeposted 12 years ago

   The New Testament letters as noted in the King James version has one distinct fact. They are the writers who was eye witnesses to the life and death of Christ and his ressurection. Peter wrote his letters approx. 62-68 AD not in the 2nd or 3 rd century which an earlier post stated.  It seems very purposeful by the Holy Spirit that their writings be the official foundation for the christian faith.  And therefore all other writings which  may add some information in it's historical context but does not mean it is inspired of God.  And there are excellent writers of God word by interpreting it to God's glory But there are certain rules applied to assure clarity and truth.  It is God's responsibility to maintain that and so he has. Be careful of all the 'other stuff " out there...because there is plenty of it that pretends to be something it is in fact not.  We have dreamers today so did we back then.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There seems to be a religious uncanny valley. There are writings that are generally accepted to be God-breathed--the canonical Bible--and plenty of other religious writings that are almost universally accepted as man-made, and we're fine with that because no one, the authors included, tries to call it scripture.
      
      Then you've got that gray area, the stuff that almost but didn't quite make the cut as scriptural, that no one likes to talk about. You'd think they'd be deemed important--after all, wouldn't deuterocanonical writings be the second holiest books in existence?
      
      But like I said, it's the "uncanny valley," usually used to describe human similacra. When it's incredibly close to "real" but ever so slightly off it causes revulsion (in the way that, say, a very life-like manakin can give you the creeps). I think it's also responsible for there being so many Christian sects, and the reason they've spent so much time fighting amongst themselves even though their differences are, in the grand scheme of things, trivial.
      
      That basic aspect of human nature seems to me a much better explanation for playing down the other gospels than some cabal-like "cover-up." I certainly wouldn't be opposed to reading them and hearing what the points of contention are.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is taken from: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-engli … index.html Feel free to read the rest of the time line...
      
      With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.
      
      This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.
      
      Next I want to offer dates for the books of the New Testements and once again I will site a source so that you can check for yourself.
      Source: The New Testament, A Student's Introduction Seventh Edition. Author Stephen L. Harris ( I am using this source, because it is an INTRO to the New Testament, and it seems that some require to start at the beginning)
      
      Chapter One, Page 12, Box 1.4
      
      50CE I Thessalonians-Paul and II Thessalonians-Paul?(if by Paul)
      54-55CE I and II Corithians-Paul
      56CE Galatians-Paul
      56-57 Romans-Paul
      61CE Colossians-Paul?(if by Paul)
           Philippians-Paul
      62CE Philomon- Paul
      66-70CE Gospel of Mark- Anonymous
      80-85CE Gospel of Mathew- Anonymous
      85-90CE Gospel of Luke, Book of Acts- Anonymous
      85-95CE Hebrews, 1 Peter, Ephesians, James- Anonymous/Pseudonymous*
      90-95CE Gospel of John- Anonymous
      95CE Revelation- John of Patmos
      95-100CE 1,2,3 John- Anonymous
      110-130CE 1,2 Timothy, Titus- Pseudonymous
      130-150CE Jude, 2 Peter- Pseudonymous
      
      *Pseudonymity- the literary practice, common among the ancient Greco-Roman, Jewish and early Christian writers, of composing books in the name of a famous religious figure of the past.
      
      And since this book is Copyrighted 2012...It is still the current scholarly teachings of Religion Based Colleges today concerning the New Testament.
      And I must say, it hasn't changed much since my days of study. The dates have gotten a little more precise (narrower)

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed!  Well said.

      replyreport
8. 60

   eternals3ptemberposted 12 years ago

   Historically I can't say, but now most people believe the Gospels of Mary, Judas, etc. were Nestorian texts, the first Christians to copy the Bible. The Church even admits evolution is true, now. Honestly, it's litigation, tradition, not conspiracy. You can go on Google and search these things up.

   replyreport
9. 71

   LauraD093posted 8 years ago

   The Catholic Church was built upon patriarchal principles which is why The Gospel of Mary was withheld. In this gospel unlike the spin I was taught as a child (she was a prostitute) Mary Magdalene is portrayed as equal to the other apostles. Her status is revered as she was the first person that the risen Christ appeared to. (although I was taught it was Peter) Women were unable to handle the body and blood of Christ due to their menses and the list goes on and on. Regardless it is my religious tradition and strides have been made-Women allowed now to be Eucharist ministers and something I never saw as a child they allow girls to be altar persons etc. I would not define myself as a practicing Catholic but the doctrine i was taught as a child did establish in me faith and the belief that there was "another greater then myself."
   
   In Ireland women have been allowed to enter the priesthood-My only beef is that I am constantly defending my participation (little that it is) in my family's religion. It is what it is. As a woman who is now in her fifties who has in her, "bag of tricks," varied spiritual practices I find it no longer my responsibility to defend what I was taught as a child. I give my Catholicism validity and out of respect to my departed family members I allow it to have its voice among all the other organized religions out there. I take what I need and leave the rest behind me. I am often challenged by ridiculous statements like "Catholics don't know the bible," etc. but I just try to avoid the argument. Isn't that what people of faith should all do?

   replyreport