Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 20 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.

Chuck

Dublin, OH

#420661 Feb 7, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The operative word here is "until", it's not the word "knew". If the verse had said "he knew her not", you wouldn't be arguing the point. In the bible and in the ancient use of the word "until" meant "not before", it did not imply that it occured afterwards. This verse says nothing more than Jesus was not conceived by their having marital realtions.
After Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had sexual relations. That's what husbands and wives do Tony. You're arguing the wrong point. She was not a virgin her whole life.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#420662 Feb 7, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Pope Benny wrote a book about his experience being in a Hitler Youth program when he was 14. Have you read it?
Wow. So much hate and ignorance and yet so little time for you to spread it.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#420663 Feb 7, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...You know your argument was just demolished, so why not own up to it? Answer: Its important for you to be wrong. lol
2 lol's and no answer..I'm shocked
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#420664 Feb 7, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. So much hate and ignorance and yet so little time for you to spread it.
So you haven't read it?

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#420665 Feb 7, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
447
<quoted text>
Hogwash......you must still be practicing to be a Catholic!!!!! Nowhere is the NT mentioned!!!!
The Hebrew aron, by which the Ark of the Covenant is expressed, does not call to the mind, as that used for Noah's Ark, a large construction, but rather a chest. This word is generally determined in the sacred text; so we read of the Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.). Of these, the expression "Ark of the Covenant" has become most familiar in English.
Description and use
The Ark of the Covenant was a kind of chest, measuring two cubits and a half in length, a cubit and a half in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height. Made of setim wood (an incorruptible acacia), it was overlaid within and without with the purest gold, and a golden crown or rim ran around it. At the four corners, very likely towards the upper part, four golden rings had been cast; through them passed two bars of setim wood overlaid with gold, to carry the Ark. These two bars were to remain always in the rings, even when the Ark had been placed in the temple of Solomon. The cover of the Ark, termed the "propitiatory" (the corresponding Hebrew means both "cover" and "that which makes propitious"), was likewise of the purest gold.
Upon it had been place two cherubim of beaten gold, looking towards each other, and spreading their wings so that both sides of the propitiatory were covered. What exactly these cherubim were, is impossible to determine; however, from the analogy with Egyptian religious art, it may well be supposed that they were images, kneeling or standing, of winged persons. It is worth noticing that this is the only exception to the law forbidding the Israelites to make carved images, an exception so much the more harmless to the faith of the Israelites in a spiritual God because the Ark was regularly to be kept behind the veil of the sanctuary.
The form of the Ark of the Covenant was probably inspired by some article of the furniture of the Egyptian temples. But it should not be represented as one of those sacred bari, or barks, in which the gods of Egypt were solemnly carried in procession; it had, very likely, been framed after the pattern of the naos of gold, silver, or precious wood, containing the images of the gods and the sacred emblems. According to some modern historians of Israel, the Ark, in every way analogous to the bari used upon the banks of the Nile, contained the sacred objects worshipped by the Hebrews, perhaps some sacred stone, meteoric or otherwise. Such a statement proceeds from the opinion that the Israelites during their early national life were given not only to idolatry, but to its grossest form, fetishism; that first they adored Yahweh in inanimate things, then they worshipped him in the bull, as in Dan and Bethel, and that only about the seventh century did they rise to the conception of an invisible and spiritual God. But this description of Israel's religious history does not tally with the most certain conclusions derived from the texts. The idolatry of the Hebrews is not proven any more than their polytheism; hence the Ark, far from being viewed as in the opinion above referred to, should rather be regarded as a token of the choice that Yahweh had made of Israel for his people, and a visible sign of his invisible presence in the midst of his beloved nation.
Oxbow

I just shared a site with you. Next time do the same, you don't need to copy some definition.

By the way jets and computers are not mentioned in the N.T. either. They must be hogwash too....

Try to think a little more logically, symbolically, allegorically, and spiritually when it comes to the whole Bible. It will help you.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#420666 Feb 7, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Marital relations.
The verse is saying they didn't have marital relations before she bore a son, it doesn't mean he "knew" her afterwards.
This is your buddy Dust Storm's reply about KNEW means martial relations:

DS SAID: Your argument is astoundingly brilliant here. Knew you say means marital relations. So the men in Sodom and Gomorrah didnt know they had to be married to know them or did the bible sanction homosexual marriage and they were secretly married. Your conclusions are sola confusing. lol

***He doesn't buy it either Tony
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#420667 Feb 7, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
It reads as though she did.
Why didn't the founders of protestantism or the generations of protestants until 200 years ago read it the way you do?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#420668 Feb 7, 2013
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of opinions, this is something I must discuss at my next confession.
Why? Do you honestly think another man can help you overcome the actions you put forth? Or more accurately, they, like any man, can only give you advice on the subject matter, and then YOU will take the action and perform it - to hopefully better yourself?

You should be analyzing your opinions within your own mind, and find out which are worthwhile to change and which ones are not.

Again - Self, is the character in this, not some man behind the curtain.
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I'm very opinionated, which doesnt' seem to be a good thing at all. I'll blame satan for this one, oh those temptations.
"I'll blame Satan for this one."
- WHAT?? Blaming your own actions on an unidentified, invisible entity? Sounds like you have an issue with taking responsibility for your own actions.

Again - Self. Acknowledging hte action was wrong (or right) is an acknowledgement of what Jesus taught - "to know yourself".

Are you afraid to look at yourself? You shouldn't be.
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Now if I can stop the snacking temptations I'd be very happy with self.
Of course you will. Think positive and all will be well.

Live in dismay, and you will only receive dismay.

"For those with eyes should see, and those with ears, should hear." - Jesus
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the topic. I agree, RCC is the only true church, others are just a spin off catholics. RCC is the only church that can be traced back to the apostils, as far as I know.
We'll agree to disagee, because at this point in the game, your church doesn't have alot of "true church" happenings, nor really have. Although there seems to be alot of discourse for others and their beliefs.
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks again for showing your kindness.
Trust in God....
We learn from each other.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#420669 Feb 7, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
2 lol's and no answer..I'm shocked
Umm..No you did not respond to the fact your argument was shown to be completely stupid. The only thing that can be concluded is you are an idiot. Why are you shocked by what everyone knows and you prove so well?
ReginaM

Lakewood, NJ

#420670 Feb 7, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Read for yourself;
Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
----------
Matthew 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
----------
Matthew 13:56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
Sorry, I don't see where it says the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of anyone but Jesus.

Thank you for searching for it though.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#420671 Feb 7, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
And they called to Lot,“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may KNOW them
Your argument is astoundingly brilliant here. Knew you say means marital relations. So the men in Sodom and Gomorrah didnt know they had to be married to know them or did the bible sanction homosexual marriage and they were secretly married. Your conclusions are sola confusing. lol
Aren't you the smart one here.KNEW is sexual relations,Joseph knew her not UNTIL-------Simple fact of Joseph not having sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she was ready,after Jesus was born,and a time of waiting for her to resume her obligation of being a wife to a righteous son of Israel.You are JEWISH?

So whether KNEW is a distorted sexual encounter between the male rapists of Sodom,or that which describes the relationship familiar to a husband and wife,we k n o w the difference smart guy!You cheapen the word by such an attempt to define words to a Catholic mentality.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#420672 Feb 7, 2013
628
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Marital relations.
The verse is saying they didn't have marital relations before she bore a son, it doesn't mean he "knew" her afterwards.
What logic!!!!

A. You know that the Bible teaches they had marital relations...
B. You say he did not know her before she bore a Son.
C. You say that doesn't mean he "knew" her afterwards.

So...Anthony...when, exactly did they have marital relations!!!!!?????

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#420673 Feb 7, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>In response to AnthonyMN.UNTIL means what it says,Joseph did not touch the Virgin Mary while she was pregnant and most likely not shortly after knowing her condition as being sacred in having delivered to the world the Holy Child Jesus.We forget that Joseph must have been in awe of the reality that Mary was carrying in her precous body,the Lord.Joseph did not have N O R M A L relations with his W I F E until she was able to lie next to him as his wife having no baby within her womb,and being by his side as his loving wife.Who knows maybe they waited a year before they could enjoy the beauty of intercourse between each other.
But the complication and madness for centuries has been that Joseph is some old man,perhaps one who selected a virgin to protect her for life.Mary is a temple virgin(another complicated)THEORY either from the Orthodox or Catholic teaching who knows? Let's complicate the issue,why should Mary be just a wife,one who along with her husband bring children into this world?
The Catholics accuse us of assuming and speculating,when they in fact are the masters of it from the get go.Mary and Joseph in the light of Roman Catholicism are a nun and a priest living together,raising Jesus alone,for what? Well seeing the outcome of such a theory in regards to RC and Orthodox teaching,we see Mary now married in essence to the Holy Spirit.As she is called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.We see that Mary is called the Mother of God,and the many titles given to her,IF in fact she was truly just the woman with Joseph a wife and mother of Jesus,and Joseph's children,Mary could not be Queen of Heaven,or now the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
It is not possible for Catholics to see Mary outside of an encrypted grotto or case.She must be almost Divine in order to have Jesus,that is why they so strongly believe in the ever-Virginity.It is worship true and true,not just praying to her for requests,but a long history of worship of the Mother of God.It is much more that what could ever be assumed from those simple Scriptures we read earlier from Luke and Mark.Mary is too base if she in fact had other children.No she must be exalted on a level which is not far from her Son Jesus.That is the reality of what is believed,it is not a matter of cousins or some other woman's sons and daughters,it is who and what Mary is.That focus alone takes away from the only ONE to be the main focus in Scripture JESUS the Christ,Son of the Living God.
More made-up, speculation Pad?

"We forget that Joseph must have been in awe of the reality that Mary was carrying in her precous body,the Lord.Joseph did not have N O R M A L relations with his W I F E until she was able to lie next to him as his wife having no baby within her womb,and being by his side as his loving wife."
- considering Joseph is not mentioned much after these "early" passages, how do you know these things? Did they just come to you? Maybe in a dream? Maybe from "God" directly?

I'm thinking this is more opinions and speculation to keep your comfort zone from being intruded with facts.

Stop reading what you want into the passages than what is necessary.

Then again, you could be like Anthony.....*shrugs*.....as he is into "reading into the article" more than what it truly states.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#420674 Feb 7, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm..No you did not respond to the fact your argument was shown to be completely stupid. The only thing that can be concluded is you are an idiot. Why are you shocked by what everyone knows and you prove so well?
Ok..my argument was blown up
So can you respond to these...things

Gen 44 Now Adam KNEW Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain

Gen 4:17 Cain KNEW his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch

**KNEW mean sexual relations...yes or no is fine.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#420675 Feb 7, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>I do not base any belief I have in Christ on what any protestant reformer thought in the time of that Reformation.If former priests such as Luther still held to the doctrines of ever-virginity or whatever else he learned in that time,that is for him to believe.I am not a Lutheran,nor a Calvinist,nor do I follow the teachings of the Reformers to date.But we have the Scriptures,and as long as we do not complicate their meaning we have simple and undeniable truth as to WHO and WHAT JESUS is,along with His mother and step-father Joseph.
If you want to argue speculation,than you must put aside UNTIL,and those Scriptures in Luke and Mark,believing what your church has taught you.I will not argue speculation:whether Jesus was the Firstborn which He was,but your Catholic theology has some other response to.Or that Joseph speculatively married some other woman first before Mary.Or that Mary was a temple virgin,which is highly legendary rather than solid truth.Mary is the mother who also is mentioned with the brothers and sisters.the WORD cousin is never mentioned. Your speculation is not enough to carry on faith for me.
I believe that Mary is truly blessed,and that she was a wonderful human being,and that she no doubt suffered horribly when her son suffered and died.I do not diminish her in any way,but it is not for me to speculate her ever-virginity,or her being a Queen in heaven,or being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.ALL Speculation! NO proof whatsoever especially from the very Apostles who shared with us in the New Testament.The Apostles did not give to us your Marian doctrines,so those doctrines are mere speculatory suggestions.
I'm not putting anything aside. The founders of your religion and the generations after them had the same scripture you do and they say she didn't have any other children. And the Catholic Church has held this same belief for 2000 years, as well as all the Eastern Churches.

I suggest that it's you who is following a tradition that developed only a few centuries ago.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#420676 Feb 7, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
And they called to Lot,“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may KNOW them
Your argument is astoundingly brilliant here. Knew you say means marital relations. So the men in Sodom and Gomorrah didnt know they had to be married to know them or did the bible sanction homosexual marriage and they were secretly married. Your conclusions are sola confusing. lol
Reading Comprehension problem confirmed.

Anthony wrote that they were "marital relations", not "Chuck"...

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TV910R5...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#420677 Feb 7, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL
I believe what Jesus taught in the Bible.
I believe Jesus is the Truth.
You believe everything Jesus taught in extra-Biblical sources.
You don't believe Jesus is the Truth.
It is your subtle way of snaring someone into an argument, that is so obvious. You laid your trap to many times in the same place and the same way to get any results from the old timers on here.(smile)
So who is really mis-directing, and being up front?(smile)
Always thinking that every non-Catholic is a deviant, huh?

Another tactic you Catholics enjoy, huh?

You are incorrect, yet again.

I do believe that what Jesus taught is true, but you don't.

You accept the teachings of men to be those truths.

Why do you continue to lie about me?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#420678 Feb 7, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL
Exactly!
You believe God can do anything, including evil....
Christians believe God only does Good, because God is Good.
Debunked.

"God" - as the OT describes, killed many people.

Looks like "He" broke "His" own commandment.

Your "God" lies. But what do you expect from an "abomination"?
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-long.htm...

Why don't you believe Jesus?
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#420679 Feb 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading Comprehension problem confirmed.
Anthony wrote that they were "marital relations", not "Chuck"...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TV910R5...
He knows that's why you don't hear a peep out of him.lol

and have you noticed he doesn't say anything to Anthony . lol
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#420680 Feb 7, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
After Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had sexual relations. That's what husbands and wives do Tony. You're arguing the wrong point. She was not a virgin her whole life.
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and all your sola scriptura protestant ancestors who had the same bible you do says she didn't. They called people fools who would suggest she did based on the word "until" because they understood the usage of the term and the average uneducated peasant didn't (modern day protestant who picks up a KJV and decides they can interpret on their own, lol).

I guess you just know the bible better than they did and have better guidance by the Holy Spirit.

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 Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 1 hr Frijoles 218,043
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 18,850
Did The Pope Perform a Miracle in Naples? 1 hr xplode 1,243
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Wall 2,432
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 1 hr Faith 434,969
News Pamela Geller's Inaugural $10k Muhammad Art Con... 1 hr Faith 30
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Uncle Sam 238,333
More from around the web