Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 641620 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.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#414308 Jan 9, 2013
Aviela wrote:
<quoted text> I humbly apologize if I offended you. I am sorry. I will go back and see what question you asked me. I will make an effort to be more patient...agape.
Aviela new friend

No need for an apology. I am slow. I tend to seperate ideas from passion, time and eternity, creation from Creator. I find going along with "accepted" teaching, and promulagating it as some personal truth to be merely robotic, didactic, and dead. It is better to ponder on God, the Beautiful....

Late have I loved you, Beauty so ancient and so new, late have I loved you!(St. Augustine)
MICHAEL

Canada

#414309 Jan 9, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's some, not many, and as I've said repeatedly, failure is part of the human condition. Period. I didn't think that was a controversial statement.
As to the Church, it cannot teach error. It doesn't teach that it's OK to commit any bad act, no matter who commits it. That's why it's lasted 2000 years despite the bad actors that have come and gone. People come and go. The Church remains.
Yes Dan its some, and it is widespread around the world. The big issue is that many of the rest of these clerics knew about these crimes and did and said nothing.

When seminarians become priests they are put into a parish within a diocese. Usually for the next 50-60 years these priests form bonds with other priests in their diocese. They golf together, they socialize with each other they know who the good priests are and who the bad apples are. They also know who has had allegations against them regarding sexual abuse.

If a priest can hear my confession and advise me to report to the police what my serious crime is so justice and restitution can be honored, than any priest/bishop outside the confessional who knows of a molesting priest has a moral obligaton as any layperson to do the right thing and inform that molesting clergy to do the right thing, to go to authorities to report his crime. This is where the water gets murky.

How many clergy ever went to authorities to report their sinful FELONY crime? How many knowing clergy who did not molest inform another clergy member to report his crime? None that I ever heard of.

These are the same men telling you to always do the right thing, but for some reason those rules do not apply to them.


LTM

Longlac, Canada

#414310 Jan 9, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone call 911 - LTM's having a break with reality again.
Regina, The reality is that you don't the truth, because you have never hear it.
To believe that a priest who is a human sinful man, could possibly order Christ down from Heaven to enter a wafer and claim it is the flesh of Christ, and the wine was turned to His Blood is nieve, and would believe just about anything.
That is a ritual that your church fathers dreamed up.
Show in the scripture were this was done, BOOK, Chapter, And Verse.
At the Passover "The Last Supper" Jesus ate the bread and drank the wine Himself and passed it to the disciple common sense will tell you Jesus never ate His own flesh Nor did He drink His own blood.
MICHAEL

Canada

#414311 Jan 9, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
How on Earth are you privy to what is instructed in the confessional?
Wait-you're not.
Again, you can have your own opinion, not your own facts.
I don't know what goes on in the confessional with others, but I do know that any priest hearing someones confession who has committed a serious crime against another person, would be instructed to do the right thing and report their crime to authorities. Right?

If molesting clergy did that, then these scandals would have been stopped years ago. Instead the church pays out hundreds of millions of dollars just in court costs alone not counting settlements, NOT PAID FOR BY THE ABUSING CLERGY or the BISHOPS who knew, but insurance companies, and every catholic who puts their hard earned money into the collection baskets.

You are paying for the sins of the fathers. You who molested no one. Are you OK with that?

In any other circumstance would you help pay for someones sins, if you would never commit such sins yourself? Of course not.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#414312 Jan 9, 2013
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Dan its some, and it is widespread around the world. The big issue is that many of the rest of these clerics knew about these crimes and did and said nothing.
When seminarians become priests they are put into a parish within a diocese. Usually for the next 50-60 years these priests form bonds with other priests in their diocese. They golf together, they socialize with each other they know who the good priests are and who the bad apples are. They also know who has had allegations against them regarding sexual abuse.
If a priest can hear my confession and advise me to report to the police what my serious crime is so justice and restitution can be honored, than any priest/bishop outside the confessional who knows of a molesting priest has a moral obligaton as any layperson to do the right thing and inform that molesting clergy to do the right thing, to go to authorities to report his crime. This is where the water gets murky.
How many clergy ever went to authorities to report their sinful FELONY crime? How many knowing clergy who did not molest inform another clergy member to report his crime? None that I ever heard of.
These are the same men telling you to always do the right thing, but for some reason those rules do not apply to them.
Again, the supposition that priests instruct the penitent to turn themselves in to law enforcement.

I'm not aware that this automatically takes place in the confessional. Can you cite where this is instructed to be done or taught that it is done when a felony (or misdemeanor, for that matter) is confessed?

I'm not picking nits-it's the crux of your comment, so I'm asking.

I'm aware that once confesses to the priest, receives advice and penance from the priest, prays for forgiveness in an act of contrition and receives absolution from the priest. That's the Form of Confession.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#414313 Jan 9, 2013
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what goes on in the confessional with others, but I do know that any priest hearing someones confession who has committed a serious crime against another person, would be instructed to do the right thing and report their crime to authorities. Right?
If molesting clergy did that, then these scandals would have been stopped years ago. Instead the church pays out hundreds of millions of dollars just in court costs alone not counting settlements, NOT PAID FOR BY THE ABUSING CLERGY or the BISHOPS who knew, but insurance companies, and every catholic who puts their hard earned money into the collection baskets.
You are paying for the sins of the fathers. You who molested no one. Are you OK with that?
In any other circumstance would you help pay for someones sins, if you would never commit such sins yourself? Of course not.
No, you don't "know" that. Not "right".

I pay for the sins of others every day.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#414314 Jan 9, 2013
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what goes on in the confessional with others, but I do know that any priest hearing someones confession who has committed a serious crime against another person, would be instructed to do the right thing and report their crime to authorities. Right?
If molesting clergy did that, then these scandals would have been stopped years ago. Instead the church pays out hundreds of millions of dollars just in court costs alone not counting settlements, NOT PAID FOR BY THE ABUSING CLERGY or the BISHOPS who knew, but insurance companies, and every catholic who puts their hard earned money into the collection baskets.
You are paying for the sins of the fathers. You who molested no one. Are you OK with that?
In any other circumstance would you help pay for someones sins, if you would never commit such sins yourself? Of course not.
Form For Confession



You make the Sign of the Cross:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

You begin your confession:

Bless me Father, for I have sinned.
This is my first confession.
OR
It has bee (tell how long) since my last confession.
These are my sins:(tell your sins).

You then say:

For these and all the sins of my life, I am sorry.

Priest: Gives you any advice and your penance.



You make your Act of Contrition

O my God,
I am heartily sorry for having offended you
and I detest all my sins,
because of thy just punishment.
But most of all,
because they have offended thee, my God,
who art all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to
sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Amen

Priest: Give the absolution and when he makes the sign of the cross you answer.

Amen

Before leaving you say:

Thank you, Father

----------
Anything else that's said is extra.
MICHAEL

Canada

#414315 Jan 9, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
How on Earth are you privy to what is instructed in the confessional?
Wait-you're not.
Again, you can have your own opinion, not your own facts.
Dan says.........How on Earth are you privy to what is instructed in the confessional?

Michael says........I don't have to be privy. Its clear to all of us. No molesting priests ever reported their crimes to authorities either on their own, or instructed by a priest hearing their confession. Can you give me examples? It was always the victims or their families.

again the only reason this all came out in the open is because so many cases came to light that the church became overwhelmed and couldn't cover them up anymore.

....3 years ago the pope blasted the media for exposing these crimes. It is all the medias fault he said.


....then the pope blamed homo-sexual priests. It was all their fault. The media again, wrote that the church was looking for scapegoats.

....then the pope said it was the rock/roll music and free love from the 1960s when priests were ordained and its all their fault.

....after much criticism of the pope, he finally caved in and said what he should have stated at the beginning. "WE HAVE SINNED"

The best policy is telling the truth. When an organization hangs their hat on truth, honesty and justice and they have failed in all 3 categories, it makes one wonder what is the church really all about, if they teach you one thing, and do the opposite themselves?


BUSTED!
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#414316 Jan 9, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Only absurd if you believe that human beings aren't subject to the foibles of their human nature.
People are immoral by their nature.
By your definition, there are no bad companies, societies, or institutions. Only individual sinners.

Your problem is that without people, companies, societies, and institutions would not exist.

Sure, people are fallible -- but it took a organized INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH to cover-up child abuse WORLDWIDE over many DECADES.

Ireland was moved to break diplomatic relations with "the Church" -- not with a few individual sinners.

By your logic, Enron was just another perfect company, but with bad people.

By your logic, Communism works great - on paper at least. It just suffers from bad people.

By your logic, "Islam is peace, just bad people."

You want a mystical church with zero accountability.

Your problem is that it is absurd to believe that God wanted a church with zero accountability.

That's called denial. It's also comedy club material.

Again, people are fallible -- but it took a organized INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH to cover-up child abuse WORLDWIDE over many DECADES.
LTM

Longlac, Canada

#414317 Jan 9, 2013
Principles of Bible Authority
We must have Bible authority for everything we do in serving God.
The Bible principle
We must not participate in any practice in God's service unless we find it taught in the gospel. If God's word says to do a thing, we must do it just as He says and not change it.
Matthew 15:9 - Our worship to God is vain if it is based on human doctrines.
Galatians 1:8,9 - If we follow man-made doctrines that differ from the gospel, we are accursed.
2 John 9 - If we do not abide in the teaching of Jesus, we do not have God. To have God, we must abide in Jesus' teaching.
The Bible is a complete and perfect guide to everything God wants us to do (2 Tim. 3:16,17; John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3). We do not need to have a passage specifically forbidding us to do certain acts in order to know they are wrong. When God tells us what to practice, then it would be wrong to do something different, even if He nowhere expressly said not to do the other thing. If He says to do one thing, and we do something else, then we are following human doctrines and a different gospel, so our worship is vain and we have not God.
cont
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#414318 Jan 9, 2013
Islam is peace -- just a few bad Muslims.

Roman Catholicism is perfect moral teachings -- just a few bad Priests.

Hello? Anyone there?
MICHAEL

Canada

#414319 Jan 9, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't "know" that. Not "right".
I pay for the sins of others every day.
If records indicate that the roman catholic church has paid out nearly $3 BILLION in lawsuits (so far) and insurance covers only part of it, where do you think the rest of the money comes from?

The only money the church has, came from the followers. The followers paid for the bricks/mortar in your church, paid for the oak panneling, priceless stainglassed windows, solid gold chalices, plush carpeting, heating/lighting bills, clergy salaries/benefits..........bef ore a cent is given to charity.

It ALL comes from the followers.

You pay for the sins of others? At least you have a voice I am sure when it comes to election time, but in your church you do as instructed ALL THE TIME.
LTM

Longlac, Canada

#414320 Jan 9, 2013
cont Principles of Bible Authority
Some examples
Why shouldn't we use milk and lamb on the Lord's Table? Because God said to have unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.
Why shouldn't we sprinkle or pour for baptism? Because God says to bury in baptism.
Why shouldn't we baptize babies? Because God said people must understand, believe, repent, and confess before baptism.
These and many other acts are wrong, because there is "no Bible authority for them," even though no passage expressly forbids them. They are different from what God said. They are nowhere taught in the Bible.
Likewise, if we find that God has told us what day to have the Lord's Supper, but we do it on some other day, then we would be acting by human authority. This would violate Bible teaching just as surely as the other examples we have mentioned.
This principle of following Bible authority is fundamental to our understanding of this and other subjects.
God teaches us, not just by commands and direct statements, but also by examples and "necessary inferences."
To abide in Jesus' teaching, we must know how to determine what His will is. His will is sometimes stated directly in commands and direct statements. But it is other times taught by examples and by reasoning to conclusions that necessarily follow from what is stated.
1 Peter 2:21 - Jesus left an example that we should follow His steps.
Philippians 3:17; 4:9 - Paul gave us an example to follow as a pattern. We should do the things seen in Paul, as well as the things heard from him.
1 Corinthians 11:1 - We should imitate Paul as he imitated Christ.
Hebrews 5:14 - Not all lessons to be learned from Scriptures are simple and obvious. We must have our senses exercised in Bible study, so we can discern the proper conclusions.
Acts 17:1-3 - Paul reasoned with people from the Scriptures to reach conclusions that necessarily followed but were not directly stated in those Scriptures. This is done in many Bible passages (see Matt. 22:23-32; Heb. 7:11-25; Matt. 19:3-9; etc.).
cont
LTM

Longlac, Canada

#414321 Jan 9, 2013
Cont
Principles of Bible Authority
So, God's will on a matter may be revealed by examples or by conclusions that necessarily follow from what is stated, even though the conclusion itself is not directly stated.
As we study any passage on a subject, we must also take into account other passages on the subject.
Acts 3:22,23 - We must hearken to all things Jesus teaches.
Matthew 4:4,7 - Man must live by every word from God's mouth. When the devil quoted a passage, Jesus cited another passage to show the devil had misused the first passage.
For instance, suppose we find a passage that shows God approved of His people doing a thing in a certain way, then in another passage we find that He approved of them doing the thing a different way. We should then conclude that it doesn't matter which way it is done. But if we take all the information we have on a subject, add it up, and find that there is only one way revealed for doing a thing, then that is the pattern we must follow.
Principles of Bible Authority
The following principles of Bible teaching will be important in our study:
We must have Bible authority for everything we do in serving God.
The Bible principle
We must not participate in any practice in God's service unless we find it taught in the gospel. If God's word says to do a thing, we must do it just as He says and not change it.
Matthew 15:9 - Our worship to God is vain if it is based on human doctrines.
Galatians 1:8,9 - If we follow man-made doctrines that differ from the gospel, we are accursed.
2 John 9 - If we do not abide in the teaching of Jesus, we do not have God. To have God, we must abide in Jesus' teaching.
The Bible is a complete and perfect guide to everything God wants us to do (2 Tim. 3:16,17; John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3). We do not need to have a passage specifically forbidding us to do certain acts in order to know they are wrong. When God tells us what to practice, then it would be wrong to do something different, even if He nowhere expressly said not to do the other thing. If He says to do one thing, and we do something else, then we are following human doctrines and a different gospel, so our worship is vain and we have not God.
Some examples
Why shouldn't we use milk and lamb on the Lord's Table? Because God said to have unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.
Why shouldn't we sprinkle or pour for baptism? Because God says to bury in baptism.
Why shouldn't we baptize babies? Because God said people must understand, believe, repent, and confess before baptism.
These and many other acts are wrong, because there is "no Bible authority for them," even though no passage expressly forbids them. They are different from what God said. They are nowhere taught in the Bible.
cont
LTM

Longlac, Canada

#414322 Jan 9, 2013
cont Principles of Bible Authority
Likewise, if we find that God has told us what day to have the Lord's Supper, but we do it on some other day, then we would be acting by human authority. This would violate Bible teaching just as surely as the other examples we have mentioned.
This principle of following Bible authority is fundamental to our understanding of this and other subjects.
God teaches us, not just by commands and direct statements, but also by examples and "necessary inferences."
To abide in Jesus' teaching, we must know how to determine what His will is. His will is sometimes stated directly in commands and direct statements. But it is other times taught by examples and by reasoning to conclusions that necessarily follow from what is stated.
1 Peter 2:21 - Jesus left an example that we should follow His steps.
Philippians 3:17; 4:9 - Paul gave us an example to follow as a pattern. We should do the things seen in Paul, as well as the things heard from him.
1 Corinthians 11:1 - We should imitate Paul as he imitated Christ.
Hebrews 5:14 - Not all lessons to be learned from Scriptures are simple and obvious. We must have our senses exercised in Bible study, so we can discern the proper conclusions.
Acts 17:1-3 - Paul reasoned with people from the Scriptures to reach conclusions that necessarily followed but were not directly stated in those Scriptures. This is done in many Bible passages (see Matt. 22:23-32; Heb. 7:11-25; Matt. 19:3-9; etc.).
So, God's will on a matter may be revealed by examples or by conclusions that necessarily follow from what is stated, even though the conclusion itself is not directly stated.
As we study any passage on a subject, we must also take into account other passages on the subject.
Acts 3:22,23 - We must hearken to all things Jesus teaches.
Matthew 4:4,7 - Man must live by every word from God's mouth. When the devil quoted a passage, Jesus cited another passage to show the devil had misused the first passage.
For instance, suppose we find a passage that shows God approved of His people doing a thing in a certain way, then in another passage we find that He approved of them doing the thing a different way. We should then conclude that it doesn't matter which way it is done. But if we take all the information we have on a subject, add it up, and find that there is only one way revealed for doing a thing, then that is the pattern we must follow.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#414323 Jan 9, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Regina, Jesus never ate His own flesh Nor did He drink His own blood.
No Catholic said that. You did! Because you have no understanding of the Jewish custom of the Passover nor do you understand the scripture or the power of God. They did not drink the fourth cup at the passover. It wont matter you do not wish to learn, but know that you are lying yet again, because in ignorance you spew garbage of things you know nothing about. It's really quite sad.

"A bowl of sour wine stood there. They put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch_the same kind of branch the Israelites had to use to sprinkle the lamb's blood on the doorpost, coincidently enough_and held it to his mouth. Before when they offered him wine, what did he do? He refused it: "I will not taste of the fruit of the vine I am coming into the kingdom." He skipped the fourth cup and then he went to pray,'Remove this cup, not as I will will, but as thou wilt,' And now he has gone and fulfilled that will to the uttermost, in perfect suffering obedience to the Father, in an act of unspeakable love.

"They put a sponge full of the sour wine on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the words that are spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, "It is finished." What is the it referring to?... What is Jesus speaking of when he says, "It is finished?" I mean, our redemption is not completed once he - he's not yet raised. Paul says, "He was raised for our justification."

So what is the it talking about? He said,'It is finished', and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit, his breath. The it, of course you realize by now, is the Passover sacrifice. Because who is Jesus Christ? He is the sacrifice of Egypt, the firstborn son. Remember, the Egyptians involuntarily had to offer up their firstborn sons as atonement for their own sins and wickedness. Christ dies for Egypt and the world. Plus, he is the Passover lamb, the unblemished lamb, without broken bones who offers himself up for the life of the world. This fits with John's gospel, because as soon as Jesus was introduced in chapter 1 of the fourth gospel by John the Baptist, what did John say? He said, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." And here is the lamb, headed for the altar of the cross, dying as a righteous firstborn and as an unblemished lamb. I believe that it's best to say in light of scripture that the sacrifice of Christ did not begin with the first spike, it didn't begin when the cross was sunk into the ground. I began in the upper room. That's where the sacrifice began. And I would also suggest that the Passover meal by which Jesus initiated the new Covenant in his own blood did not end in the upper room, but at calvary. It's all of one piece. The sacrifice begins in the upper room with the institution of the Eucharist and it ends at calvary. Calvary begins with the Eucharist. The Eucharist ends at Calvary. But in another way of thinking, it ain't over yet! Cause it ain't over till it's over. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, "Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, therefore"_what?_we don't need to have any more sacrifice? Therefore we don't need to have any more ritual, therefore all we have to do is have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and invite him into our hearts and everything else is taken care of? No, he's too knowledgeable about the Old Testament to say any of that. He says, "Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed; let us therefore celebrate the feast." What feast? The whole Passover feast. It's not complete yet. What do you mean?

Well, go back to the Old Testament http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn...
Dan

Omaha, NE

#414324 Jan 9, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
By your definition, there are no bad companies, societies, or institutions. Only individual sinners.
Your problem is that without people, companies, societies, and institutions would not exist.
Sure, people are fallible -- but it took a organized INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH to cover-up child abuse WORLDWIDE over many DECADES.
Ireland was moved to break diplomatic relations with "the Church" -- not with a few individual sinners.
By your logic, Enron was just another perfect company, but with bad people.
By your logic, Communism works great - on paper at least. It just suffers from bad people.
By your logic, "Islam is peace, just bad people."
You want a mystical church with zero accountability.
Your problem is that it is absurd to believe that God wanted a church with zero accountability.
That's called denial. It's also comedy club material.
Again, people are fallible -- but it took a organized INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH to cover-up child abuse WORLDWIDE over many DECADES.
"By your logic, Enron was just another perfect company, but with bad people.

"By your logic, Communism works great - on paper at least. It just suffers from bad people.

"By your logic, "Islam is peace, just bad people."

I could stand on those statements, yeah. No such thing as a "perfect company", but I think it's plain that any ills attributable to any of the three things you list lie with people's actions.
LTM

Longlac, Canada

#414325 Jan 9, 2013
Bible Verse Of The Day

Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

John 4:35 (KJV)

www.Christ.com
Dan

Omaha, NE

#414326 Jan 9, 2013
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
If records indicate that the roman catholic church has paid out nearly $3 BILLION in lawsuits (so far) and insurance covers only part of it, where do you think the rest of the money comes from?
The only money the church has, came from the followers. The followers paid for the bricks/mortar in your church, paid for the oak panneling, priceless stainglassed windows, solid gold chalices, plush carpeting, heating/lighting bills, clergy salaries/benefits..........bef ore a cent is given to charity.
It ALL comes from the followers.
You pay for the sins of others? At least you have a voice I am sure when it comes to election time, but in your church you do as instructed ALL THE TIME.
I said "I pay for the sins of others all the time." All the time means-ALL THE TIME.

Amazing how much they give to charity with all the overhead you list, isn't it?
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#414327 Jan 9, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't "know" that. Not "right".
I pay for the sins of others every day.
Oh my.

Then others must pay for your sins. So what?

So who pays more for the other's sin? You or them?

You are spinning like a top.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 min MUQ2 44,394
News Python Interrupts Man's Toilet Time 3 min les 1
News Stolen car abandoned on I-229 with weapons inside 4 min les 1
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 11 min Joe Fortuna 38,282
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 15 min Annaleigh 104,711
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 15 min onemale 280,899
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 15 min bacon hater 969,979
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr good true observa... 618,402
More from around the web