Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 673073 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

OldJG

Rockford, IL

#390127 Sep 19, 2012
Is there a new religion on the horizon? Could it be Roman Muslim? No? What about Islamic Catholics? Now that has a ring to it. Imagine, combining the theology of Roman Catholicism with Islam.

How would the Islamic Catholics do "holy" communion? Would the bread turn into the flesh of mohammed and the wine? What would the wine turn into?
truth

Adelaide, Australia

#390128 Sep 19, 2012
today they practising deference..they not care for others in secret..they do in secret some group and know why going destroy many..not necessary they not going win..poor Muslim people..ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh
they choose wrong path in mecca
can be mocca napoitano kras ''nut'' napolitanca

word moca i sina=when you put cross over yourself
a e i o u
maca meca mica moca muca
acam acem acim ocam acum

nut=shell
kras nut krasnut=kristnum krosnut krusnut KRIST

kras nut = sarktun sankrist sinkrist senkrist sonkrist sunkrist

read LTD

pope and others muslim and all politicians game

readdddddddddddddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddddd

why they liked hurt me spit me judge meeeeeeeeeeeeee

readdddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddd

who they are

i know they readdddddddddddddddddddddddddd dddddddd

which document they need mentallllllllllllllllll

really

be good marge

ha ha ha very sad from high level people under order whom

do you liked documents..
then read

Why they attacking me?
orah=walnut=see as mind within
truth

Adelaide, Australia

#390129 Sep 19, 2012
ZINGER is mean old textile machine from chine..
try my meaning from simple mind.

Go as i told you ''linijom manjeg otpora''=''line not strongers''.

I been in visit my birth home..not because i been prepeare or wanted..no no no..because its been death case..but war in my contry is allready finish..when i come there i speak with my very close relatives..no i need go trough heavy argument..no no no they don't want except what i say to them..oh could you imagen they flying ..ahhhhhhh forgive me why i wrote this..

I told them about zinger machine from chine when danke say 45 degree od shake do lakta policy on on others side ..i told them on very ordinary language how much they will have from zinger policy..o yes danke danke..but i say to you..i am very very minded person on ordinary way..express myself with language ''little valley with little hill''..

oh chine=enich=e neces..as i say necu=nooooooooooo

Do you understood my meaning???
OMG

United States

#390130 Sep 19, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
If you knew what lustful really meant, I doubt you'd think so.
Greed is the disordered desire for finacial gain, to use to build, maintain a family, etc.
Greed is desire for gain, for its own sake, apart from any usefulness.
Lust is disordered sexual desire, apart from any love or mutual self-giving, It is sex completely apart from any concern or feeling for one's partner.
You'd as well masturbate with a hundred pound fist, for all the enduring value "lustful sex" would have.
Rob
Leave it to a Catholic Priest to descend into gutter talk. Why am I not surprised? You are right on par with the rest of your Catholic Clergy. You are sickening!

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#390131 Sep 19, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to add 6) None of this is binding upon anyone, should they decide their own interpretation of scripture teaches them to believe otherwise. For example, should an individual conclude, through their own interpretation of scripture a doctrine of Universal Predestination irresistable to human will, they are correct to do so.
Mustn't forget individual interpretation of scripture. It's foundational to all Protestant faith.
Rob
Obviously you know little of the Protestant Faith.
With the Holy Spirit guiding our reading of the Bible God gave us, there is no argument.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#390132 Sep 19, 2012
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe Truth is Catholic. I would be very surprised..
It seems only the Catholics and Orthodox announce their faith on this site.
With everyone else (including you) its a guessing game. Are they Baptists? Are they Evangelicals? Are they Pentecostals(Confront)?
Are they Pentecostal Evangelical Baptists or PEB's?(I made that one up, I think)
Got news for you... I am a Baptist, and HAVE mentioned my faith numerous times... So have other posters here mentioned theirs. Wake up.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#390133 Sep 19, 2012
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples like this are "clearly the reason" why many Protestant denominations have "fallen victim" of secularism (gay ministers, gay marriage, etc) in there Christian teachings, and that God loves everyone--period---and that's it!!
So how do you explain your numerous 'gay' priests, Hoho?
Did they become 'Protestant' then, according to you?
You're such a JOKE.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#390134 Sep 19, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
Father Dye - All Catholics and Any Anti-Catholics who may want a dose of reality on the Credible source plagiarized by LTM who never lies and only gets information from the bible alone. Who is Jack Chick and Albert Rivera LTMS bible source of truth. Comic books the light of the world. lol
http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightma...
Another idiotic romanist tall tale and lie concerning LTM.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#390135 Sep 19, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
truth with the small t is either a non-English speaker, or a bot experiment. I wouldn't worry about him/her/it.
You're not going to be able to communicate in any case.
Rob
She happens to be a PERSON... not an 'it'. And she apparently has some emotional issues.
Orville

Portland, OR

#390136 Sep 19, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ...
The Bible cannot be cited as evidence of its inspired nature, at least, not legitimately.
But the scriptures are considered to be a record of what Jesus did, what He said, what He taught.
We have a pretty good line of where the NT came from, and who wrote it, for the most part. Many of the
etters attributed to Paul were in fact written by the same person, so we might as well call him Paul.
The letters attributed to "John" may not have come from the same person as the author of the Gospel according to John, but those letters and the Revelation all appear to come out of the same community, and show evidence of being written by those highly influenced by the author of the Gospel of John.
We have good evidence of the use of Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke, and of the existence of the Q document, even though we don't have that document itself.
All of these are writings of the first century, except perhaps the Gospel of John, which os probably dated about 110.
You could look into source criticism or textual criticism, if you really want to have a line on what yo ought to think of the books of the NT.(You can apply the same methods to the OT, but it gets harder and harder, the more ancient the text is.)
You keep saying there is no historical evidence, but in fact the Christians are referred to by Tacitus, in his account of the fire of 64 A.D. Tacistus refers to the Christians as followers of "Christua," whom Tacitus says was executed by "one of our procuraotors, Pontius Pilate."
The Annals of Tacitus could probably be dafely dated as 116 or 117.
Rob


Greetings Robert,


So your going to dismiss 66 books of truth because of some misnomers as to whom may or may not of wrote them? We are not sire Paul wrote the book of Romans. But Paul as all people have their unique style of conveyance. Thus, we assume Paul wrote Romans.

Further, is it not as important as the author or the truth contained within?


The Vatican claims certain people authored writings. But they are long gone. It is taken as face value by Catholics they did write certain journals regarding Catholicism. But we do not know . Same applies to the Scripture.

Look if the Scriptures did not prove themselves as truth, in my life, I would of abandoned them & Holy Jesus a long time ago.

guest

United States

#390137 Sep 20, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to add 6) None of this is binding upon anyone, should they decide their own interpretation of scripture teaches them to believe otherwise. For example, should an individual conclude, through their own interpretation of scripture a doctrine of Universal Predestination irresistable to human will, they are correct to do so.
Mustn't forget individual interpretation of scripture. It's foundational to all Protestant faith.
Rob
-
*Mustn't forget individual interpretation of scripture. It's foundational to all Protestant faith.*
-
Sola Scriptura or Sola POPA?(Sola POPA .. ha! I found that little gem somewhere on the 'net yesterday and now can't find it again.)
-
Sola POPA bought us the Inquisition.
-
Sola POPA bought us the Crusades.
-
Sola POPA bought us pedophile priests being sheltered.
-
Sola POPA bought us 1450 YEARS of NO-ONE else except Catholic clergy being allowed to read the Bible - or suffering torture and murder if they did.
-
WHY? Why not allow the common man to read the Bible? The answer is simple. The Bible contradicts what the Pope has said and the Pope can't handle the competition! The Pope has been outed by the written Word of God.
Orville

Portland, OR

#390138 Sep 20, 2012
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am with you Full Of Love.


Amen.
Orville

Portland, OR

#390139 Sep 20, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
If you knew what lustful really meant, I doubt you'd think so.
Greed is the disordered desire for finacial gain, to use to build, maintain a family, etc.
Greed is desire for gain, for its own sake, apart from any usefulness.
Lust is disordered sexual desire, apart from any love or mutual self-giving, It is sex completely apart from any concern or feeling for one's partner.
You'd as well masturbate with a hundred pound fist, for all the enduring value "lustful sex" would have.
Rob



lest we confuse "lust" with heartfelt sexuall compassion.
truth

Adelaide, Australia

#390140 Sep 20, 2012
25 26
25=y cromoson
frog look sience
egg
many
look its not adoltory justaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

read how they find

kidney

24 piramide plus one 25

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#390141 Sep 20, 2012
Orville wrote:
<quoted text>Greetings Robert,


So your going to dismiss 66 books of truth because of some misnomers as to whom may or may not of wrote them? We are not sire Paul wrote the book of Romans. But Paul as all people have their unique style of conveyance. Thus, we assume Paul wrote Romans.

Further, is it not as important as the author or the truth contained within?


The Vatican claims certain people authored writings. But they are long gone. It is taken as face value by Catholics they did write certain journals regarding Catholicism. But we do not know . Same applies to the Scripture.

Look if the Scriptures did not prove themselves as truth, in my life, I would of abandoned them & Holy Jesus a long time ago.
Then you should have abandoned them a long time ago.
guest

United States

#390142 Sep 20, 2012
guest wrote:
You are correct in attacking the religious institution.
The Catholics are the meanest ones here, for the most part.
But I do have to say that if not for a "mean" man I would most likely still be Catholic. The Catholic spiel that they are the ONLY true Christian church and can prove it through apostolic succession was ingrained in me. Catholics are sufficiently indoctrinated to never listen to anyone no matter how reasonable they are ... makes for difficult discussions. The "mean" man told me fist of Matt 23:9 "call no man your father" and then hammered away with verse after verse which I never had seen while Catholic.
-
Then he said, "Catholics don't know how to study the Bible, the actual Word of God. They only study what the Catholic Church wants them to study." I was devastated as he continued to inform me of the errors of the church. I don't remember everything (it was about 25 years ago), but he just kept slamming.
Sure Catechism teaches a few verses from the Bible but the church never makes a great effort to actually study the Bible. They have hijacked Peter as the first Pope. I now know he never held such a position, for that matter, he was married.
Peter was not the first Pope and subsequent Popes did not/don't have the right to usurp God's authority.
-
-
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
I'm gonna give you a freebie, so you don't come off such a fool.
You're welcome.
The fact that Peter was married is immaterial as to whether he could have been the first pope.
The Didascalia Apostolorum, written in Greek in the first half of the 3rd century,[28] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife, and of the children being already brought up, when it quotes 1 Timothy 3:2–4 as requiring that, before someone is ordained a bishop, enquiry be made "whether he be chaste, and whether his wife also be a believer and chaste; and whether he has brought up his children in the fear of God".[29]
There is record of a number of 3rd-century married bishops in good standing, even in the West. They included: Passivus, bishop of Fermo; Cassius, bishop of Narni; Aetherius, bishop of Vienne; Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux; Faron, bishop of Meaux; Magnus, bishop of Avignon. Filibaud, bishop of Aire-sur-l'Adour, was the father of St. Philibert de Jumièges, and Sigilaicus, bishop of Tours, was the father of St. Cyran of Brenne.[30] No statement is made about whether they had children after becoming bishops or only before.[Wikipedia]
The council of Elvira begins the addressing of the matter of clerical celibacy, but it is not really settled until the Middle Age, and even so, there are married priests in the Western Church even today. The Eastern Rite Churchs (all of them part of the Universal Catholic Church) have always had married clergy, and in the past, martied bishops.
I can't even determine if the Church of the East (a rite wihing the Catholic Church) has ANY requirements reharding celibacy.
You need to set aside your copy of "Alberto," and try to rely on something a bit more accurate.
If Alberto Rivera had ever been a priest, or a bishop, as he claimed, he would have known what I outline above.
His statement that "Peter could not have been the first pope, because Peter was married" gives evidence that he did not know he Catholic faith any better than you do.
Rob
-
I know the Catholic faith and I know it absolutely is NOT the truth.
-
I threw that Peter wasn't married statement in there to see if you would talk to me. So far you have declined when you don't have a credible answer and I thought this is one you might have an "answer" to. So, call it 'bait' if you will.
-
But, consider this: Peter, who you say has handed down the faith to succeeding Popes, would NEVER himself advocate celibacy, or murder or torture, or sheltering pedophiles. Neither would Jesus.
-
But, you IGNORE Jesus' own words in favor of fallible Popes.
-
No wonder torture and murder are options for Catholics.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#390143 Sep 20, 2012
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you KM I was talking to James tonight, when I told hin I thought he was under a attack from satan he said he thought of that too.
He has strong faith in God I told him to persevere, he has a blessing coming
Oh jesus.

Under attack from Satan?!

I would say you can't be serious, but you are.

Unbelievable.
guest

United States

#390144 Sep 20, 2012
guest wrote:
You are correct in attacking the religious institution.
The Catholics are the meanest ones here, for the most part.
But I do have to say that if not for a "mean" man I would most likely still be Catholic. The Catholic spiel that they are the ONLY true Christian church and can prove it through apostolic succession was ingrained in me. Catholics are sufficiently indoctrinated to never listen to anyone no matter how reasonable they are ... makes for difficult discussions. The "mean" man told me fist of Matt 23:9 "call no man your father" and then hammered away with verse after verse which I never had seen while Catholic.
-
Then he said, "Catholics don't know how to study the Bible, the actual Word of God. They only study what the Catholic Church wants them to study." I was devastated as he continued to inform me of the errors of the church. I don't remember everything (it was about 25 years ago), but he just kept slamming.
Sure Catechism teaches a few verses from the Bible but the church never makes a great effort to actually study the Bible. They have hijacked Peter as the first Pope. I now know he never held such a position, for that matter, he was married.
Peter was not the first Pope and subsequent Popes did not/don't have the right to usurp God's authority.
-
-
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
I'm gonna give you a freebie, so you don't come off such a fool.
You're welcome.
The fact that Peter was married is immaterial as to whether he could have been the first pope.
The Didascalia Apostolorum, written in Greek in the first half of the 3rd century,[28] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife, and of the children being already brought up, when it quotes 1 Timothy 3:2–4 as requiring that, before someone is ordained a bishop, enquiry be made "whether he be chaste, and whether his wife also be a believer and chaste; and whether he has brought up his children in the fear of God".[29]
There is record of a number of 3rd-century married bishops in good standing, even in the West. They included: Passivus, bishop of Fermo; Cassius, bishop of Narni; Aetherius, bishop of Vienne; Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux; Faron, bishop of Meaux; Magnus, bishop of Avignon. Filibaud, bishop of Aire-sur-l'Adour, was the father of St. Philibert de Jumièges, and Sigilaicus, bishop of Tours, was the father of St. Cyran of Brenne.[30] No statement is made about whether they had children after becoming bishops or only before.[Wikipedia]
The council of Elvira begins the addressing of the matter of clerical celibacy, but it is not really settled until the Middle Age, and even so, there are married priests in the Western Church even today. The Eastern Rite Churchs (all of them part of the Universal Catholic Church) have always had married clergy, and in the past, martied bishops.
I can't even determine if the Church of the East (a rite wihing the Catholic Church) has ANY requirements reharding celibacy.
You need to set aside your copy of "Alberto," and try to rely on something a bit more accurate.
If Alberto Rivera had ever been a priest, or a bishop, as he claimed, he would have known what I outline above.
His statement that "Peter could not have been the first pope, because Peter was married" gives evidence that he did not know he Catholic faith any better than you do.
Rob
-
I know the Catholic faith and I know it absolutely is NOT the truth.
-
I threw that Peter wasn't married statement in there to see if you would talk to me. So far you have declined when you don't have a credible answer and I thought this is one you might have an "answer" to. So, call it 'bait' if you will.
-
But, consider this: Peter, who you say has handed down the faith to succeeding Popes, would NEVER himself advocate celibacy, or murder or torture, or sheltering pedophiles. Neither would Jesus.
-
But, you IGNORE Jesus' own words in favor of fallible Popes.
-
No wonder torture and murder are options for Catholics.
guest

United States

#390145 Sep 20, 2012
sorry for the double post the computer isn't working correctly tonight

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#390146 Sep 20, 2012
OldJG wrote:
Hey, Roman Catholics....this is your leader. RATzinger. Oops!! poop Benedict Arnold XVI. He just loves those muslims doesn't he?

Rome: Pope Benedict XVI has praised Lebanon's Muslims for the "great respect and sincere consideration" they showed him during a vist to the country last week.

"The Muslims welcomed me with great respect and sincere consideration. Their constant affable presence gave me the opportunity to launch a message of dialogue and collaboration between Christianity and Islam," the pontiff said.

"I believe the time has come to bear sincere and definitive witness together against division, violence and war," he said.
Yeah.

How terrible.

What an ass, trying to make peace with enemies.

Jesus would be horrified.

Oh wait. Jesus professed just that.

I take it you're not Christian.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min One way or another 61,374
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 4 hr DaniEl 513,301
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Dogen 28,320
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 2,687
News Companies in the European Union can ban headsca... 7 hr just Jay _ for fr... 5
News Jehovah's Witnesses ask Kremlin for relief from... 7 hr Alank 56
News Donald Trump Makes Me Proud To Be an American 7 hr BuildTheWall 1
More from around the web