46 votes

Pope Benedict XVI 'to resign'

Pope Benedict XVI is to resign on February 28th, according to reports on Italian news agency ANSA.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Who is really at fault, Church or State.

It should be the individual that is punish, not the organization. If not then American presidents should be arrested for covering up all the pillaging and rapes that occur by American soldiers? It seems the problem should not fall on the Church resolve, but for the State to enforce the laws that it has instituted.


Over here we're hoping for that Black guy from Ghana to be the next "pope". That would be really funny!

The question I have to people

The question I have for people of this faith, especially the very principled guys like Thomas Woods and Andrew Napolitano; devout, practicing Catholics...

Shouldn't the Pope be arrested when he steps on to American soil? There is a abundant evidence to suggest that he covered up and/or tolerated what amounts to pedophilia...in any case, he was the head of an organization that committed this crime relatively unhindered.

Shouldn't he be questioned in court? Should he not face punishment for these crimes?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Love the down-votes with no

Love the down-votes with no responses...classic!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Sure but what court would he

Sure but what court would he be tried in? He's not am american. hes practically king of his own country. Im sure he has diplomatic immunity wherever he goes. There are over 1 billion catholics who would come tearing down the court room walls to free someone they hold dearly as the most revered man on earth. They would treat it like if he was Christ himself (Christ's Ambassador on earth). Not even Obama would be dumb enough to infiltrate the vatican and try him for crimes here on american soil.

In regards to this, and the

In regards to this, and the whole way the American justice system has handled American priests and churchmembers doing this abuse...

Isn't this violating the Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law? Which prohibits establishment of religion (which giving preferential treatment based on religion would be)?

It really bothers me when American courts say "let the Church handle it; it is an internal matter". Even if the parents of the victim agree to let it be an internal matter or agree to a payoff..

How would we react if a politician, or the head of a cult, or a members of a social club committed these acts? We would demand action!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Interesting to mention that

Interesting to mention that as the leader of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981–2005), Cardinal Ratzinger, oversaw all of the sex abuse cases at the Vatican... Also check out this great documentary: Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression.
Frontline: The Untouchables

Is the next pope going to be black?

According to Saint Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, the next pontiff will be the final pope and his anointment will usher in the end times. If you think the Mayan 2012 hysteria was crazy, you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Saint Malachy predicted that the final pope would be called ‘Peter the Roman’. Guess what the name is of one of the favorites to become the next pope?


I think the cardinals will bend over backwards to avoid

appointing anyone who fits the description of petrus romanus- but then find out after he's been chosen that in some way he fits perfectly- as had happened with benedict. My own guess is that peter the roman will actually be the pope's camerlengo. Malachy mentions 111 popes- then 'one who follows', not necessarily a 112th pope. Whatever happens after Feb 28 will be seen however anyone wants to see it. Theres sooo much room for interpretation/misinterpretation : )

2013 the year of the Snake

2013 the year of the Snake begins on February 10th shortly after the New moon in Aquarius, the humanitarian of the zodiac.
The colour of the 2013 year of Snake is Black. Black color is the Space, Arctic night, darkness on the Abyss, this is a color of deep waters. The Black Snake will bring people unexpected changes, instability, and changeability. That is why it is important in the year of Snake to plan everything beforehand, and evaluate adequately before taking any actions. You need to be more careful and cautious than ever.


In other news the pope just gave his resignation today. His last day will be on February 28, 2013. Conclave will begin early march.

I'm not saying its a coincidence but it does give me a creepy feeling. Oh and theres wide speculation that the next pope may be black (doubtfully) but did they mean black in color or....

I still don't understand how

I still don't understand how so many of you can say how corrupt the vatican is, cite all the horrendous acts they have committed (and still do) around the world. You know they are a fraud! but yet you still read and worship the book they fabricated. The god Nero created by combining all other god beliefs into a universal god under one emperor. That book was written, fabricated, re written buy countless Catholic monks. And it can only be interpreted by the catholic church as there was no other Christian church in existence for at least a 1000 years. They wrote the book, they decided what was to go into it and what was cast out and burned. So tell me how any person who calls themselves christian can follow a book but not the author who wrote it? Dont you think if they meant it to have any other meaning than they interpret into it now that they would have changed it to see fit??? The creation of christianity by rome was so successful that now everyone believes they can profit from it. If you think anything I write here is lies then your just a sheep who cant open their eyes to read some of the countless books written in history. Learn your history.

Yes, Christianity was apparently INVENTED by the Romans

Yes, Christianity was apparently INVENTED by the Romans as a political tool to control the masses of the day, and it is still being used this way today.

"Caesar's Messiah, The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" by internationally known and best-selling Bible scholar Joseph Atwill [perhaps the most AMAZING and disorienting hour a Christian will ever experience]
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuqwmMpV2oo

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Joη's picture

let's hear some critiques of Atwill's theories:


"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

How is it your

business how others worship? I've never understood religious hostility, either from religious folks or those who hate them. To each his own.

Iv'e see nothing in nearly 60 years around Catholics to support.

Catholics like all men have their share of sinners.

It have been my experience that many adhere to the non-aggression principle, from the top on down. Have there been men who have sinned in secret, no doubt. Have there been men who have conspired in their sins.

A billion Catholics and you hold up a few you don't agree with in 2000 years of history all based on hearsay evidence. Sigh.

The only thing harder than herding Catholics is herding Libertarians. Sinning is sooo easy.

Free includes debt-free!

A good website but not as

A good website but not as much information


Denise B's picture

Just a question for you,

since I don't want to be accused of being a "sheep who can't open their eyes...". If the Catholic Church created the New Testament (which is patently false because many of the writings in it predate the actual inception of what we now call the "catholic church"), why then did they translate the books into latin, a language which most of the common folk could not read or write? If they made it up to control and fool the masses, wouldn't they have done so in a language that the common folk could read and understand?

On the other hand, if you wanted to use scripture which was written by other people (like the apostles and others who actually did write the books of the New Testament), wouldn't the only way to decieve the public be to put it into a language that they couldn't read or understand, that way you could tell them it says and means whatever you want, and no one would be the wiser (which is exactly what the catholic church did).

To put my question in much simpler terms,if the Catholic Church fabricated the entire NT, why use a language that most couldn't read or understand and forbid the flock from reading it and interpreting it for themselves?

Why did the Vatican

Ban the bible.


"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Because they wanted to become

Because they wanted to become the sole interpreter of christ. And they needed to back their claim that no one can have salvation outside the doors of the catholic church.

THe catholic church goes all

THe catholic church goes all the way back to 325 when Nero was emperor. they would say it predated it. however there is no other church in existence today that has still survived. In fact the church under Rome made sure of that by killing them all. The gospels we hold today are not the same as they were before roman influence. THere were also many other gospels that didn't make the cut into our bible today. possibly hundreds however there are very few in circulation today and you wont find them in a religious book store, Like the gospel of thomas is one that comes to mind. it predated roman influence but it is still not accepted as inspired by god but who is to make that authority? its atualy one of the oldest writing of christ we have in existence.

Actually, Nero...

...was Roman Emperor from 54 to 68 AD. I think you're thinking of Constantine, perhaps?

I find it interesting that there is supposedly evidence that the first Christian Church, outside of Jerusalem, was actually in Britain, at Glastonbury -- perhaps from the influence of Joseph of Arimethea. I haven't studied this out, but it's an intriguing thought.


Nero was they guy who persecuted Christians. My mistake. ...no i have never heard of that, I wouldn't put much thought into it. But the Hare Krishna's seem to have a compelling story.

Denise B's picture

I am going to address

your comments one at a time. First, let's distinguish the fact that the Catholic Church does not equal all Christianity. The early Christian church (starting from the time of Jesus and the Apostles) consisted of many small groups of Christians scattered through the regions. The gospels themselves have been dated to 60 a.d. and some as early as 40 a.d. Around 250-300 a.d. there were three large Christian groups located in the cities (in addition to the many smaller groups scattered throughout the region), the largest of which was in Rome and the decision (under dubious circumstances) was made to make Rome the head of the Chrisitan church - hence the very beginning of the "Catholic" church. Christianity as founded by Jesus and His apostles had already been established for nearly 300 years this point. As the Roman Catholic Church grew and became drunk with power they did and taught a lot of terrible things that had nothing to do with what the original gospels said and which were an affront to the Gospel of Grace as established by Jesus Himself and the apostles as detailed in the scriptures. This was the reason the Catholic church ultimately had the scriptures translated from the original Greek into Latin because it was easier to deceive people when they couldn't read God's Word. That is not to say that everything the Catholic church did was incorrect at that time, but over a period of time they twisted the Gospel of Grace into a made up Gospel of works to profit themselves.

As far as other scriptures you reference, like Thomas and Mary and others that have recently been brought to light, as a means to try to discredit orthodox Christianity, they were left out of the New Testament Bible that we know today for very good reason because they could not be verified as being authentic. All of the writings that are currently in the NT can be dated to 60 a.d. or prior, while the ones that you are referencing did not surface until much later, in some cases 100s of years later, and there were no means to verify their authenticity, as well as the fact that many of their passages directly contradicted the scriptures which were already determined to be authentic.

I am not a defender of the Catholic Church, as they have done many things which are in direct violation of what scripture itself teaches, but I am a Christian. The two terms are not interchangable.

I dont disagree with anything

I dont disagree with anything you just said. But tell me who was to decide what books were considered Canonical (inspired by god) or false? The Council of Carthage, which was held in 397 A.D., mainlythrough the influence of St Augustine, settled the Canon or Collection of NewTestament Scriptures as Catholics have them now, and decreed that its decisionshould be sent on to Rome for confirmation. No Council (that is, no gathering of theBishops of the Catholic Church for the settlement of some point of doctrine) was everconsidered to be authoritative or binding unless it was approved and confirmed bythe Roman Pontiff, whilst the decisions of every General Council that has receivedthe approval of Rome are binding on the consciences of all Catholics. The Council ofCarthage, then, is the first known to us in which we find a clear and undisputedcatalogue of all the New Testament books as we have them in Bibles now.

For the same reason

For the same reason landowners didn't want their slaves to be more educated. Its so that factions wouldn't break off and interpret or profit from the doctrine on their own. We have very few gospels that actually predate vatican influence, one of the oldest being the gospel of mark. However the gospel of Mark that does predate this is much shorter than the gospel we have today. some very important factors were left out. like the lineage, the resurrection and other very significant dogmas. I was going to place quite a bit of material here and decided I'm just too lazy to re write it all in my own words but i would like to invite you to a website i found called www.vatileaks.com that has some good information with references about early gospels.
THey translated the book into latin because that was the official language of the new rome. During the council of nicaea when they declared all the dogma to base christianity on, they decided to unite all religions to come under unity of rome's new religion. You are correct in your Statement about not wanting the laity to be able to interpret the gospels for themselves but you need to remember very few could actually read to begin with unless you were educated. It was also very time consuming to rewrite the gospels for everyone to read. Latin was the language the emperor spoke. THe churches themselves hardly had any gospels to preach from it was mostly word of mouth. and their actually wasnt a completed printed Bible availiable till around 1456. The bible or gospels where more of a historic book of minutes so to speak. the real gospel was spoken as most masses couldnt read any language or afford an actual piece of the gospel

Denise B's picture

I will save you the time,

I have done hours and hours of my own research (from trusted sources, not online sites) and am convinced of the authenticty and dating of the original gospels. I am also aware of the so called "older" writings, which were only discovered in a dumpster less than 100 years ago. I have read numerous topics on this and am convinced beyond a doubt that the scriptures that are included in the NT as it has existed for almost 2000 years include writings which were verifiably written less then 100 years subsequent to Christ's death and many much earlier than that. This was long before the Catholic Church as we know it came into existence. Please stop trying to discredit all of Christianty based on the shortcomings and falsehoods of the Catholic Church.

Ok. But in your spare time I

Ok. But in your spare time I encourage you to read this small book. Heres a free link to it in pdf.

If you feel certain that the New testament as we have it today is the true inspired collection of gospels and writings then you at least owe that to the Catholic church. There would be no New Testament or bible today if it were not for them. And that is an indisputable fact.

Denise B's picture

Fair enough,

I will look at it. Yes, the Catholic Church did play a role in determining which scriptures were included in the NT, it was a complex process which involved dating and verifying the authenticty of the scriptures, which were aleady in existence before the Catholic Church became what it was. And as I stated, the Catholic Church in it's beginning was simply the declared "center" of the Christian churches which were in existence prior to the Roman Catholic church claiming "headship". Not everything the early Catholic Church did was wrong or incorrect; however, over time they became corrupted and wandered further and further away from the teaching of the orignal gospels as written.

The testaments were written

in Hebrew, so they already existed before they were translated.