Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 658723 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: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435785 Apr 27, 2013
Aretha123 wrote:
<quoted text>Since you dismiss theology and philosophy, you are left with shallow,reflexive,insufficient answers. Yet not lacking arrogance.
There is no way these questions you raise can be answered without a thoughtful examination.This means philosophy and theology not some sort of book on that "Kooky Vatican". I wish you well but cannot give you the answers that are there.
Of course I'm not lacking in arrogance. If I was I wouldn't BE a human.

I can't give answers, because I don't have answers. I have opinions, as do you.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435786 Apr 27, 2013
Aretha123 wrote:
<quoted text>Since you dismiss theology and philosophy,
I don't dismiss philosophy, as it is a guessing game.

And I don't dismiss theology if it is contained in its meaning concerning the "study" of religion.

But for theologians to claim they can read the future and know what it entails ... that is NOT study of religion ... it is preaching lies in the guise of truth, and I am very much opposed to such blatant flaunting of nonsense.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435787 Apr 27, 2013
Whether the new pope resides in a guest house as a statement that he is a simple man with simple needs, I suggest you don't believe this silly gesture.

His staff knows where he lives, and they are at his beck and call day and night.

Most of us don't have servants, or guards ... and that is the truth of the matter.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435788 Apr 27, 2013
According to the following story, this pope resigned his position and DID go back to his simple previous existence.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

Sex Lives of the Popes … by Nigel Cawthorne … first published in Great Britain in 1996.‘An irreverent expose’—The Sunday Times.

The conclave following the death of Pope Nicolas IV (1288—92) made a terrible mistake. After over two years of stalemate, they elected a genuinely good man – a hermit called Peter of Morone, who lived in a cave a thousand feet up in the Apennines near Abruzzi. He was crowned Celestine V (1294, but he could not stand the licentious ways of Rome and moved to Naples.

The cardinals soon began to realize their mistake when Celestine began giving away the wealth of the church – to the poor, of all people! He had no flair for corruption or simony at all. And the princes of the Church worried that they would soon be bankrupt. Cardinal Benedict Gaetani, the papal notory, saw his chance. To gain Celestine’s confidence, he built the old hermit a humble wooden shack inside the huge rooms of the Castello Nuovo, the five towered castle that over-looks the Bay of Naples. There, Caetani prevailed upon Celestine to abdicate.

Just fifteen weeks after consecration, Celestine called his cardinals together, begged them to banish their mistresses to nunneries and to live in poverty like Jesus. Then, as an example to them all, Celestine put aside his papal gown, resumed his hermit’s rags, resigned and rode off, like Jesus, on a donkey.

Having engineered this coup, Gaetani had himself elected pope by the grateful cardinals and was crowned Boniface VIII (1294—1303).
truth

Perth, Australia

#435789 Apr 27, 2013

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#435790 Apr 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't dismiss philosophy, as it is a guessing game.
And I don't dismiss theology if it is contained in its meaning concerning the "study" of religion.
But for theologians to claim they can read the future and know what it entails ... that is NOT study of religion ... it is preaching lies in the guise of truth, and I am very much opposed to such blatant flaunting of nonsense.
June Darling We were talking about the questioning of suffering in the world.Keep posting.You are one of a kind.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#435791 Apr 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't notice that anyone did claim the hierarchy had originated the word. I got the impression that the other posters were implying that the hierarchy simply morphed the word vatican to mean a place where the popes and their entourages reside.
I agree with their opinions.
No what was being implied by the Seventh Dayers is that it means Divine Serpent and it holds significants because the Vatican is the Beast in the bible. The Vatican merely took the name that was already there. Its not hard to see the bible light sight which has already been so thoroughly discredited. I realize everything is fiction for you, but the name of the city has nothing to do with the theology or teachings of the Church. Its a location. Jeruslem fits the bill on everything the claims are made against the Vatican as the beast. One can go round and round making all kinds of arguments against claims made and it has been done. I have no interest in doing so and it takes pages to refute each claim.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435792 Apr 27, 2013
If you observe the following opinions of Martin Luther, you will see that opinion is fickle and therefore not at all dependable.

We continually take sides on issues. Maybe there is no whole picture. It's possible that tunnel vision is all there is to the matter. I don't know, but from my perspective, guessing is a whole lot of fun.
>>>>>>> >>>>

From the book,“History of Christianity,” by Clyde L. Manschreck … comes the following…………..

Assessments of Martin Luther (1483—1546) vary widely, depending on the stance of the assessor. To Pope Leo X he was stiff-necked notorious, damned heretic; to Philip Melanchthon and many of his contemporaries, a second Elijah, a new Paul. For 400 years from Thomas Murner in 1520 and Johann Dobneck in 1549 to Harmann Grisar and Heinrich Denifle in the twentieth century, Roman Catholic writers pictured Luther as a seven-headed monstrosity, a sick monk driven by sex, a desperate criminal, a destroyer of culture, a misguided radical. Since 1950 however, many Catholic scholars have hailed him as a profound reformer. To Goethe he was a genius; to Neitzsche a vulgar peasant. Luther regarded himself as a tool of God.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#435793 Apr 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have something against black vehicles?
:)
Ollie says 'oh no'....we have nothing against them.

Its just that BLACK Buses have been designated to pickUP ALL hateful, hypocritical, hAtheists at their allocated stations and take them on their one-way trip to their ultimate party.

Now, as for WHITE Buses....that's a different story.

Go Figure

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435794 Apr 27, 2013
What theologian DIDN'T regard his self as a tool of a god or gods?

The word theologian to most people does not mean to study religion. It means to KNOW the answers.

That was a huge misuse of language which lead to rivers of blood being spilled by ignorant humans who knew no better than to follow and follow and follow.

The mind is weak and the will to be right is strong.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#435795 Apr 27, 2013
Religion - A Delusion wrote:
This board needs unity.
God doesn't want us to argue, right?
Let's ALL ask Jesus to appear...
There used to be one way for Jesus to prove that he rose from the dead. He used to appear to people. Several different places in the Bible describe Jesus' appearances after his death:
Matthew chapter 28
Mark chapter 16
Luke chapter 24
John Chapter 20 and 21
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 provides a nice summary of those passages, as written by Paul.
Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions.
So...
Why did Jesus stop making these appearances?
We know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people -- it does not take away their free will, for example -- because it was OK for Jesus to appear to hundreds of other people in the Bible.
Let's ALL ask Jesus to appear.
What do you think would happen?
I do, because I am a great seer.
Nothing will happen -- because all gods throughout history have proven to be imaginary.
Not just Jesus -- but 100% of all gods = imaginary.
That why no one can agree here.
That's why there have been so many religious wars.
So let's all pray together and maybe Jesus will prove me wrong? lol
Stanley says that you have a Black 'moniker' thus meaning that you are NOT a true member of TOPIX Forums.....

....and that you are full of schidt to the eyeballs.

Go Figure

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435796 Apr 27, 2013
Do no harm, has never been an issue to theologians.

Bragging of knowing answers rather than admitting that it's all about guessing caused unfathomable harm and it continues to this day as one theologian after another stands on his pulpit and claims to know the one and only truth of what occurs after humans die.

Fortune-tellers ... one and all.

What a shame!

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#435797 Apr 27, 2013
Abraham Heschel in his book The Prophets says, "The most exalted idea applied to God is not infinite wisdom, infinite power, but infinite concern."

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435798 Apr 27, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
No what was being implied by the Seventh Dayers is that it means Divine Serpent and it holds significants because the Vatican is the Beast in the bible.
Well I don't put trust in any fortune tellers and that includes the Seventh-Day Adventists and their favorite fortune teller Ellen G. White.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >

God Invented Sex … Charles Wittschiebe …Pastor of the Seventh-Day-Adventist religion.

After asking the meaning of “base passions”“exhaustion of vitality,”“passion within the marital relationship,” the woman doctor continued,“Ellen G. White seems to say that the woman should restrain her husband and not always accept his advances. It would seem to me that exactly in this lies the great problem of our S.D.A. couples. The wife restrains her husband too much, thus creating tensions in the home and leading to many marital problems, because neither of them is satisfied with their physical relation.

“Time and again married women who find no satisfaction in their marital life come to my office with these quotations in hand, using them as an argument in favor of having intercourse only occasionally with their husbands.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#435799 Apr 27, 2013
Jesus' feelings sufferings authentic reflection of God himself

If God's full and final revelation was given in Jesus, then Jesus' feelings and sufferings are
an authentic reflection of the feelings and sufferings of God himself. The gospel writers
attribute to Jesus the whole range of human emotions, from love and compassion through
anger and indignation to sorrow and joy. The stubborn willful blindness of the human heart
caused him distress and anger. Outside Lazarus' tomb, in the face of death for a dear friend,
Jesus both "wept" and "snorted" with indignation. He wept over Jerusalem, and uttered a
sad lament (a snort) over her blindness and obstinacy. And still today he is able "to
sympathize with our weaknesses" (see Mark 3:5; John 11:35, 38; Luke 13:34ff, Luke
19:41ff). The writer to the Hebrews summed it up well, "For we do not have a high priest
who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses" (Hebrews 4:15).

What does all this mean? What does it say to us today? Our God is not the God of the
philosophers, "The Unmoved Mover" (Aristotle), "Eternal Energy" (Huxley), "The
Unknown Absolute" (Arnold). Not the "First Principle", "Life Essence", "Divine
Architect", "Life Force", "Supreme Intelligence", "Big Boss", "Man Upstairs". Our God is
not the Big Bully who runs everything and has to have everything his way. God has power,
sovereign power, almighty power, but God's power is always used consistent with his
character, consistent with his purpose, and consistent with his patience. To say God is
sovereign means God has the right to be himself. The question is not so much what God
can do, as what God will do. God will not lie. God will not act in an unloving way, God
will not do a foolish thing. God is a limited God. To the extent that he has made us free he
must limit himself. If I am free, then my actions are not predetermined. If I am to be
responsible, I must be free. God is still almighty; because his limitations are selflimitations.
God chooses to limit himself. He makes himself vulnerable. Part of the
The God Who Suffers With Us - page 3
greatness of God is his desire to stoop to our needs, to accommodate himself to us. God
values personal relationships and reaches out to each of us as persons. God has taken
terrible risks with each one of us. We can say "yes" to him, and we can say "no" to him.
That is the risk of freedom. We can also say, "I love you", and it can mean something
because it is freely given. Our God is not the impassable God of the Greeks. Our God is
the passionate God of the Hebrews. He is at least personal. He comes to us in the person
of Jesus and empowers us by the person of the Holy Spirit. God respects us and addresses
us as free persons. That makes God vulnerable, willing to take the risk. God works by
persuasion, not coercion. This is most important to us because we become like the God we
worship. Since our God is vulnerable, caring, compassionate, concerned, involved; that
means he wants us to become that kind of person and enter into that kind of relationship
with him. As Christians we are in a personal relationship with a personal God, not in a
legal relationship with a Cosmic Lawyer or the Infinite Iceberg. Our God responds to us
and to our world in all of its miseries in a caring and empathetic way.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#435801 Apr 27, 2013
God chooses to limit himself. He makes himself vulnerable. Part of the greatness of God is his desire to stoop to our needs, to accommodate himself to us. God values personal relationships and reaches out to each of us as persons. God has takenterrible risks with each one of us. We can say "yes" to him, and we can say "no" to him.
That is the risk of freedom. We can also say, "I love you", and it can mean something
because it is freely given

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435803 Apr 27, 2013
Stan-an-Ollie wrote:
<quoted text>Stanley says that you have a Black 'moniker' thus meaning that you are NOT a true member of TOPIX Forums.....
I read where at one time in history both words black and white simply meant "void of color," or "without color."

The word black was vilified by believers that darkness meant evil and light meant holiness.

It was another plan created out of ignorance and arrogance.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435804 Apr 27, 2013
Aretha123 wrote:
Jesus' feelings sufferings authentic reflection of God himself
Is that why your imaginary Jesus agreed with his converted Catholic father burning riff raff in hell for eternity.

You choose to be silly.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435806 Apr 27, 2013
The theologians taught that sex was evil and dirty and for the most part sin against the supposed god ... and then they blamed the fictitious Satan for causing the problems.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

God Invented Sex … Charles Wittschiebe … Seventh-Day-Adventist

Sit in any Adventist church in the choir loft for a few years and observe the sour looks on many husbands and wives and the way they look and speak to each other, and you have ample evidence that Satan has done his work well.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#435808 Apr 27, 2013
One woman shared an important private issue with me years ago that still sticks in my mind.

She was very shy about sex in her marriage, and although she loved her husband was totally frigid.

However, one night she went for it. She fondled him and let him know that she wanted him sexually - big time.

I could tell by how they looked at each other that there were "no holds barred" between them and that he was one happy man.

Good food might be the way to a man's stomach, but good sex will be the way to his self-esteem that he is welcome, appealing and well-worth the time it takes to show him he is "the man."

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
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 7 min gundee123 5,020
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 48 min Joe Fortuna 70,894
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 58 min bad bob 183,463
Donald Chump: "Not paying federal taxes makes m... 1 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr nanoanomaly 974,735
Worldclassk-9.com ripped me off for $4500 (Jan '10) 2 hr BAMF K9 94
Black people are more evolved then white people? (May '13) 2 hr Johnny 250
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 2 hr Synque 142
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr onemale 282,986
More from around the web