Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Aug 30, '10, 9:44 am
edwest2 edwest2 is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 19,816
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Here are all of the details about Galileo:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp






God bless,
Ed
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Aug 30, '10, 10:04 am
Rence Rence is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2009
Posts: 7,470
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcteague View Post
How exactly were Galileo's execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
Because Catholics don't see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is, but that's how the Church teaches how Catholics are supposed to view the Church. Catholics are taught not to look at the actions of previous popes, bishops, theologians or other Church leaders or officials by those actions themselves and are taught that those actions do not reflect back on the Church. Catholics are taught to look at the dogma, theology and official teachings and notice that they are unchanging and consistent through time. Corruption within the Church, for example, would be a violation of a dogma such as all of a sudden teaching that the Immaculate Conception was a false teaching. Or if the Church body would change the contents of the Apostles or Nicene creeds -- because they are unchanging by dogmatic teaching -- that would be a corruption.

So for example, Church leaders like previous Popes and Bishops lead unsavory livestyles that might have included mistresses, and fathered children or covered for friends who did so, rather than seeing it as a teaching by example, and by judging the Church's merits by the actions of it's leaders, we are supposed to consider that those were just poor judgments or bad mistakes of those individuals rather than a reflection on the Church. So, the gates of Hell didn't prevail when those sins or evils were done, rather they were poor choices of the one who commited the sins, and no reflection on the Church.

Or for example, with the priests who have molested children and haven't been removed, or have been transferred to other parishes, or have otherwise been protected by the Church, we are supposed to look at those priests and their superiors as sinners, or those who have made mistakes or had poor judgement, and not as a reflection of the Church. So the gates of Hell don't prevail even though priests who represent the Church commited these crimes, and they were shuffled around and not removed -- it is not supposed to be a reflection on the Church itself, but on the priests and their superiors themselves.

I hope that makes sense. I'm not good at explaining that aspect of what the Church teaches. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But even if all the Church leaders are corrupt, we are not supposed to look at it as a reflection on the Church itself. When looking at the Church and it's "corruptibility", we are supposed to look at the dogma, theology and other teachings, which we are assured can never be wrong even though those who make the rules can be wrong in their personal lives.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world looking at the Church doesn't see it that way because they were not taught that way. Usually institutions are judged by the merits of their leaders and other representatives. So I think that the sins of such leaders or authority figures are that much more detrimental because they DO reflect back on the Church. Many people believe the Catholic Church is corrupt from the inside out because the actions of those who represent the Church -- which reflect back at the Church to non-Catholics. And even to some Catholics.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Aug 30, '10, 10:30 am
fhansen fhansen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2007
Posts: 6,879
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dummy View Post
Was not Galileo censored when he was right and the church was wrong?

Nazis, what would you have done as the church and what would have been the consequences for the church in Germany?

As far as I know, illegitmate children is hearsay.

The thread is an outgrowth of a short discussion I had with a catholic friend off line. I asked him about Arius being a Bishop after the Trinity was defined at Nicea. He got mad, and said the church is never wrong and ran away. I could not but wonder, why Arius was not excomunicated by the Pope for good after Nicea, what exactly happened to put Arius back in power as Bishop? And, would not those catholics following him at that time be in danger of hell fire?

The Church considers herself infallible only on her teachings on faith and morals, teachings on the meaning of the gospel and the will of God for man. This in no way means that her members, whether pope, clergy, or laity, will act impeccably- that they will necessarily follow her teachings themselves, although they all should of course; no one should sin. But one of her teachings, that on Original Sin, practically guarantees us that humans can be expected to behave badly at times, operating at a level lower than they should, i.e. they will sin.
__________________
"This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections." - Saint Augustine

"It is love alone that gives worth to all things." - St. Teresa of Avila
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Aug 30, '10, 10:53 am
edwest2 edwest2 is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 19,816
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Here is the basic information about Arianism:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=973







God bless,
Ed
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Aug 30, '10, 4:00 pm
Big Dummy Big Dummy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 1,808
Religion: doubter
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Thanks ed
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Aug 30, '10, 10:34 pm
VeritasSeeker's Avatar
VeritasSeeker VeritasSeeker is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2010
Posts: 84
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

What of the claim(that my muslim friend made) that Papal infallibility is false because Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades. The Claim is that the popes during the time of the crusades made official pronouncements regarding the morality of the crusades(note that The Church did not officially define papal infallibility until 1870). My friend argues that the crusades fall under the category of faith and morals thus the morality of the Crusades is not up for debate and since Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades it is said that this disproves Catholicism. The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. The morality(justness) of the Crusades was infallibly declared by the popes at the time.
a. It was declared officially (ex cathedra though it wasn't defined at the time)
b. It was a matter of morals
2. Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades(implying they were immoral)
3. Therefore, Papal infallibility is false
4. Therefore, Catholicism is false.


--Thanks in advance!
__________________
"Anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.'''

"We always find that those who walked closest to Christ were those who had to bear the greatest trials." - St. Teresa of Avila
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Aug 31, '10, 5:02 pm
mcteague mcteague is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 25, 2010
Posts: 284
Religion: etc.
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

The church does not claim infallability in all things. It specifically relates to some particular things and beliefs that define what being Catholic means.
So tbe church basically says you can have considerable latitude on a number of issues. But these particular things are not debateable if you want to call yourself a Catholic. Again they do not claim infallability as a general premise. So your friend is misunderstanding the term. To argue that any error by the Church makes all it's teachings invalid is just as in invalid as arguing that it has that has never been wrong because we can construct a somewhat convoluted, semantic argument that actions or statements made by it's representatives don't count. Neither is correct, valid or fair.

I hope this is an adequate defense. This is not my are of expertise

Last edited by mcteague; Aug 31, '10 at 5:12 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Aug 31, '10, 9:41 pm
awatkins69's Avatar
awatkins69 awatkins69 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2010
Posts: 810
Religion: Catholic Christian
Send a message via AIM to awatkins69 Send a message via Skype™ to awatkins69
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeritasSeeker View Post
What of the claim(that my muslim friend made) that Papal infallibility is false because Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades. The Claim is that the popes during the time of the crusades made official pronouncements regarding the morality of the crusades(note that The Church did not officially define papal infallibility until 1870). My friend argues that the crusades fall under the category of faith and morals thus the morality of the Crusades is not up for debate and since Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades it is said that this disproves Catholicism. The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. The morality(justness) of the Crusades was infallibly declared by the popes at the time.
a. It was declared officially (ex cathedra though it wasn't defined at the time)
b. It was a matter of morals
2. Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades(implying they were immoral)
3. Therefore, Papal infallibility is false
4. Therefore, Catholicism is false.


--Thanks in advance!
Yo. I'd argue against premise 2, saying that it's a false premise. JPII did not apologize for the crusades or state that they were wrong in themselves. Rather, he apologized for the bad actions of some crusaders.

First of all, let's understand quite clearly that religious war, in itself, is not immoral. It falls under the same condition of the Church's just war theory as any other war. These criteria include:

-Just cause
-Comparative justice
-Legitimate authority
-Right intention
-Probability of success
-Last resort
-Proportionality

So in order to say that the Church, by endorsing crusades, directly contradicted itself, we'd have to go into more detail of whether a crusade fulfills these conditions. I'd say that crusades, in themselves, do not contradict just war theory.

Secondly, understand that JPII always apologized for the sins committed by those who were Catholic. He apologized for those who failed in their duties as Catholics, not for following what the Church said. He never says the Church sinned. That would indeed be directly contradicting Church teaching, since according to Catholic doctrine the Church cannot err. However, individual members of the Church can err, and indeed often have. He apologized and asked forgiveness for all those who fall into this category.

Also, you may find this link interesting:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRSADES.HTM
__________________
Totus tuus ego sum, Maria, et omnia mea tua sunt.
God's message for our times: http://www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com/...cle-ologs.html
My blog: http://analyticscholastic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Aug 31, '10, 10:03 pm
JM3's Avatar
JM3 JM3 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 3,007
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeritasSeeker View Post
What of the claim(that my muslim friend made) that Papal infallibility is false because Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades. The Claim is that the popes during the time of the crusades made official pronouncements regarding the morality of the crusades(note that The Church did not officially define papal infallibility until 1870). My friend argues that the crusades fall under the category of faith and morals thus the morality of the Crusades is not up for debate and since Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades it is said that this disproves Catholicism. The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. The morality(justness) of the Crusades was infallibly declared by the popes at the time.
a. It was declared officially (ex cathedra though it wasn't defined at the time)
b. It was a matter of morals
2. Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades(implying they were immoral)
3. Therefore, Papal infallibility is false
4. Therefore, Catholicism is false.


--Thanks in advance!

Premise 1 is not correct. The crusades were not about morality, they were about politics and the economy.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Aug 31, '10, 10:09 pm
JM3's Avatar
JM3 JM3 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 3,007
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcteague View Post
It should be noted that not retracting or changing a position only demonstrates consistency, or an unwillingness to admit error, not that it has not been wrong.

Interesting statement. Do you apply this to yourself as well? (just curious)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Aug 31, '10, 10:24 pm
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 10,533
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence View Post
Because Catholics don't see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is, but that's how the Church teaches how Catholics are supposed to view the Church. Catholics are taught not to look at the actions of previous popes, bishops, theologians or other Church leaders or officials by those actions themselves and are taught that those actions do not reflect back on the Church....

So for example, Church leaders like previous Popes and Bishops lead unsavory livestyles that might have included mistresses, and fathered children or covered for friends who did so, rather than seeing it as a teaching by example, and by judging the Church's merits by the actions of it's leaders, we are supposed to consider that those were just poor judgments or bad mistakes of those individuals rather than a reflection on the Church. So, the gates of Hell didn't prevail when those sins or evils were done, rather they were poor choices of the one who commited the sins, and no reflection on the Church.
....
The way to look at Church teaching versus the actions of some Catholics is this: are the Catholics who are doing bad things following or deviating from what the Church teaches?

In every case, the people are not following what the Church teaches; they are going against Church teaching, so their actions cannot reflect on Church teaching, can they?

Let's look at those who follow Church teaching closely, the martyrs and other canonized saints. The martyrs were killed, some in excruciatingly painful ways, and yet praised God as they died. St Francis of Assisi kissed a leper. Mother Teresa (not yet canonized) picked up people who were dying in the streets of Calcutta, people who stank from the supporating sores on their bodies, in her own arms and carried them to the hospital.

Now, these people were following Catholic teaching, and their actions can be used to consider those teachings.
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Aug 31, '10, 10:38 pm
St Francis St Francis is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Posts: 10,533
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcteague View Post
How exactly were Galileo's execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
You have been answered about Galileo, the illegitimate children question is answered in my post above, and the reports of the Pope's not condemning Naziism have been greatly exaggerated.

In 1937, while some prominent Americans were still praising the Nazi system, the Pope wrote Mit Bennender Sorge, in German, and had it read in every church on Passion Sunday of that year. The Nazi response was to put Catholic monks and priests "on trial" and throw them in prison, as well as closing presses and confiscating every copy they could lay their hands on. Later, when the Dutch bishops rebuked the Nazis there, the Nazis retaliated by rounding people up for concentration camps. The Catholic hierarchy worked behind the scenes to save people rather than inflaming a situation about which they could do nothing.

The utter myth of "Hitler's Pope" was first promulgated in the 1960's when the Soviet Union paid a playwright to write a play saying that. It's nothing more than the propaganda of those who were our enemies.
__________________


"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P



Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Aug 31, '10, 11:23 pm
Wowbagger's Avatar
Wowbagger Wowbagger is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Posts: 741
Religion: Faithful Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dummy View Post
As far as I know, illegitmate children is hearsay.
Unfortunately, this one is pretty much definitely true. I mean, we have no 16th century DNA testing, but we have tremendous amount of historical evidence indicting Pope Alexander VI for having all kinds of illegitimate children. Pope Alex also had a nasty habit of giving his teenaged children powerful cardinalships. GOOD TIMES. (I had a wonderful Benedictine professor in Rome who thought the Vatican should open up the "Pope Alexander VI Institute for Marriage and Family Life" -- because Pope Alex loved his children so much!)

Unfortunately, Pope Alex probably wasn't the worst. Our records of the 10th century are much more fragmented, on account of the 10th century being approximately the WORST century EVER... but what records we do have suggest that we had a series of very, very bad popes... which were part of a papal dynasty, handed down father-to-son on at least one occasion.

The fact that the Church survived that is, in my opinion, evidence in favor of the Holy Spirit's protection. But... geeze. Sometimes I wish the Holy Spirit guaranteed a little more of the Church than just the occasional Magisterial proclamation. Wouldn't it be nice if we could rest assured that the USCCB would do the right thing in election cycles, or that Popes wouldn't call for Christendom to ride into a doomed crusade, or that those mean old ladies in the pew next to us at the 10 AM Sunday Mass you know who you are would just be tolerably pleasant when they're in the pew?

But the Holy Spirit sends us what we need: infallible teaching, saints, and opportunities for martyrdom.
__________________
I blog about religion and the law now.
De Civitate, at jamesjheaney.com/
Check it out.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Sep 1, '10, 12:51 am
Abu Abu is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2008
Posts: 4,374
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Big Dummy
Was not Galileo censored when he was right and the church was wrong?
No.
Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics. He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy. He was treated fairly.
Quote:
mcteague
I think it is a mistake to consider the church the enemy of the secularist. I would simply say it offers a way which it feels is better.
Secularism is the enemy of Catholicism, and of reality, for it falsely assumes that whether God exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based.
“Feeling” is worthless for truth and error. Secularism rejects reality which exists because God created mankind subject to the natural moral law known from reason as to cause and effect, and the Christ established His Church to enable us to know His truth with certainty, and to be able to choose freely to follow that truth.

BTW, dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC #88).

Defined doctrine on faith or morals, such as in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) against contraception, and in the Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1994) on male-only priests, is infallible.

As stated previously, dogma and defined doctrine can never be contradicted.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old Sep 1, '10, 3:21 am
cassini cassini is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Posts: 1,655
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence View Post
Because Catholics don't see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is, but that's how the Church teaches how Catholics are supposed to view the Church. Catholics are taught not to look at the actions of previous popes, bishops, theologians or other Church leaders or officials by those actions themselves and are taught that those actions do not reflect back on the Church. Catholics are taught to look at the dogma, theology and official teachings and notice that they are unchanging and consistent through time. Corruption within the Church, for example, would be a violation of a dogma such as all of a sudden teaching that the Immaculate Conception was a false teaching. Or if the Church body would change the contents of the Apostles or Nicene creeds -- because they are unchanging by dogmatic teaching -- that would be a corruption.

So for example, Church leaders like previous Popes and Bishops lead unsavory livestyles that might have included mistresses, and fathered children or covered for friends who did so, rather than seeing it as a teaching by example, and by judging the Church's merits by the actions of it's leaders, we are supposed to consider that those were just poor judgments or bad mistakes of those individuals rather than a reflection on the Church. So, the gates of Hell didn't prevail when those sins or evils were done, rather they were poor choices of the one who commited the sins, and no reflection on the Church.

Or for example, with the priests who have molested children and haven't been removed, or have been transferred to other parishes, or have otherwise been protected by the Church, we are supposed to look at those priests and their superiors as sinners, or those who have made mistakes or had poor judgement, and not as a reflection of the Church. So the gates of Hell don't prevail even though priests who represent the Church commited these crimes, and they were shuffled around and not removed -- it is not supposed to be a reflection on the Church itself, but on the priests and their superiors themselves.

I hope that makes sense. I'm not good at explaining that aspect of what the Church teaches. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But even if all the Church leaders are corrupt, we are not supposed to look at it as a reflection on the Church itself. When looking at the Church and it's "corruptibility", we are supposed to look at the dogma, theology and other teachings, which we are assured can never be wrong even though those who make the rules can be wrong in their personal lives.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world looking at the Church doesn't see it that way because they were not taught that way. Usually institutions are judged by the merits of their leaders and other representatives. So I think that the sins of such leaders or authority figures are that much more detrimental because they DO reflect back on the Church. Many people believe the Catholic Church is corrupt from the inside out because the actions of those who represent the Church -- which reflect back at the Church to non-Catholics. And even to some Catholics.
Terrific post Rence. You are great at explaining your thoughts and I agree with every one of them. Recently I reads a book TALISMAN that described the slaughter of heretics, nay the attempted genocide, around 400AD.
The Church however is a unique institution. It cannot be touched or be guilty of what its members do. It teaches DO NOT KILL, yet there were killings, lots of them, in the name of the Church. Had Church teaching not forbidden killing it could of course have been accused of the same offence. So too with all the sins committed by its members to this very day. Secular society ridicules the Church for its moral teaching, yet see how they judge when they find a priest or someone who breakes the same laws.
The wrongs of popes however is another thing. Today, or shall we say in the last few centuries, we have had well behaved popes, so viewing a pope almost as a saint has returned to the Church. But we still had popes like the Borgas who lived like kings with their concubines producing children and most of all giving scandal that must have led many to hell. 'Well the pope saw no problem, so why should I?'
The missing question then comes down to the Catholic view of the Holy Ghost's part in the day to day activities of the Church. Today the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, is said to be behind every move they make in Rome these days. FREE WILL has been removed and the impression is that the Holy Ghost wakes the Pope up every morning and dictates to them how He wants them and the Church to change, how He wants to get rid of priests to be replaced by lay-women in His churches for example.
I howeve do not believe that post-Vatican II propaganda. I believe Rome and its hierarchy is now structured just like any multi-national company, with the smart lads climbing to the top where some day they go from vice-president to President, just like Cardinal Ratzinger. Had the papal conclaves elected some obscure bishop for his holiness then I might see the inspiration of the Holy Ghost directly involved in the choice of pope, not the simple allowance of man's free will to chose the pope from the vice-president's office.
Otherwise the doctrine and mystery of man's free will is rejected. If the Holy Ghost dictates what a pope does, how is he going to save himself? Is that fair to a robber in whom the HG did not take over?
God can do this, that is, allow man to chose popes and behave as they will. What He promised was that no pope will officially contradict, deny or change a dogma or doctrine once it has been defined and declared. He meant by this He would not allow it to happen.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8243Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5004CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4342Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3830SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3556Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3219Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3203Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3104Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3045For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:11 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.