Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 542,637
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
Dan

Omaha, NE

#451320 Jun 13, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Dan"
I didn't.
Me: Why would Jews transcribe the teachings of Jesus Christ?
You: "To spread it ..the words of their teacher that's why"
Jews don't believe in Jesus. Jewish scribes wouldn't transcribe the teachings of someone they didn't believe in.
**********
The first several thousand members of Jesus' church WERE JEWS !
KayMarie
.........that believed in the teachings and divinity of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings aren't part of Judaic teaching. Jewish scribes wouldn't have transcribed non-Jewish teaching.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#451321 Jun 13, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I never joined any group, as group mentality simply keeps on reflecting the same thought-process back and forth to members, and that type of habitual mental behavior stagnates mentalities.
I prefer to travel on my own, studying as many ancient and new religions as possible ... plus beliefs of Agnostics and Atheists.
And of course from what I post, you are already are aware that I no longer entertain the idea of the existence of a creator.
you have a good point,you only have one source to the existence of a creator and how far can you go with it without constantly repeating yourself like HOJO does,he talks about all this authenticated history about the church/jesus yet he never posts it,he just repeats the same thing in every post.I to have read about other religions dating back way before christianity was created,and i notice they all contain basically the same story lines but different names,is history repeating itself? did these people actually exist? there is more evidence out there about the fact that "WE ARE NOT ALONE" than there is about a single diety that supposedly created this praradise,yet he chooses not to reveal himself to us with the lame excuse,that we could not comprehend his being,it's beyond our scope of reasoning i guess,which does not make sense,if we are designed in his/her likeness,why couldn't we comprehend it? and this great plan he has for everyone,what plan could possibly be better than life itself? i can't think of a better one.
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#451322 Jun 13, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
EVIDENTLY YOU ROMAN CATHOLICS CANNOT READ.....
LOOKS AS IF JESUS HAD MORE THAT ONE SET OF KEYS..
.THAT IS DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ALL....
Yes!! We, as Catholics can ALL READ and know the TRUTH! The fact is that (you Confrinting)can also read BUT cannot interpret TRUTH!!!(only what YOU want your "long list" of bible verses to mean!!
This is just more of the same old Confrinting bible only interpretation (or better yet misinterpretation of sacred scripture in which you keep "digging a hole"---deeper and deeper for yourself!!!!! WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYWHERE in these verses that you listed that Jesus was giving more than "one set of keys" other than to Peter in Matthew 16:19., when Jesus said "To YOU, Peter I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven"..... Confrinting, you just continue to "make things up" and make the bible mean "only what YOU want it to mean", which comes as "no surprise to ANY of us Catholics. The fact is that NOT ONE authoritative Apologist historian author or writer (Catholic or Protestant) agrees with your (own personal) anti-catholic editorialized interpretation of what Jesus actually said regarding "keys to the kingdom of heaven". You just "throwing things out" on this forum- "desperately hoping" that someone is gullible, ignorant and uniformed enough to "buy into" the distorted comments that you "again" are so famous for!!!!!
Dan

Omaha, NE

#451323 Jun 13, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't speak for the world...but I was excommunicated because my wife divorced me!!!!! And to make it worse yet...fornication was involved!!!!!
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
You were excommunicated from what for getting divorced?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#451324 Jun 13, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am thinking TH a t Dan thinks they were mostly illiterate..But the Jews taught the Torah before bar mitzvah. And some kids went on to study more and become teachers them selves.
PAUL was certainly writing to people who could read. The Romans had conquered most if that world which had contained many literate people's.
And common sense says they made some copies to pass to other congregations..imo
I'M sure many were not literate but it stands to reason..many were.
Yes the disciples preached the word..But at some point they write things down to preserve them .THEY were Jews used to having the. Written word preserved.
Someone spoke to and recorded details only MARY would know. John or Luke would be my guess..
And not to argue on Mary again..She was not the star of the show. I am sure they loved and respected her greatly..But after the Crucifixion we don't hear about this humble Jewish mother. Though common sense says she was helping the ministry. But they were also a patriarchal people.
And I am guessing here from what we know of her she would nit allow herself to be the focus of devotion..Imo
The writings to me ..some if them ..we're there from as soon as they moved around. And who knows what was burned in Jerusalem..luckily mist if them left.
Just my take on it based on the very books themselves.
I'm not thinking that they were illiterate in the main; they were illiterate in the main.

"common sense" tells us that there wasn't a means to produce mass copies of anything and nothing tells us that copies were made and handed around.

Clearly, you're simply creating "facts" out of whole cloth to support the written word requirement that protestant theology demands. It simply wasn't the case back then.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#451325 Jun 13, 2013
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>Dont you think it would be better in the eyes of God to admit that a failed marriage took place insteady of pretending it never happened??What if two devote catholics married and everything is great for 20 years and then one of them goes thru midlife crisis and cheats..and now the two want to seperate cuz the trust is gone and so is the love.That marriage was good in the eyes of God for 20 years but Man himself screwed it up.Why then pretend it never happened in the eyes of God? it did?It is better to be truthful....
having a marrige anulled is done just for the sole purpose of making money for the church,a divorce is just as good and costs the same.the horrible part is people who really believe in the catholic church,become distraught over an anullment because if children are involved their names are removed from the book of life and become bastard children,and people actually believe that,that is what the fight was about back when joe kennedy wanted his marrige anulled which was going to be granted,thanks to a large 5 figured check,and his ex-wife went public with it,because she did not have the power the kennedy's posses,and that is what bothered her was the fact her childrens names would be removed from the book of life,she thought that was not fair to them (which i agree),they had no part in what happened as far as the marrige goes so why should they be punished?(there not really) and why should the church be doing this? I find it very wrong,they changed their beliefs many times in the past this is one that should be done away with.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#451326 Jun 13, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
KM-Recall please the adage that it's better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
in·car·nate
adjective \in-&#712;kär-n&#601;t ,-&#716;n&#257;t\
Definition of INCARNATE
1a : invested with bodily and especially human nature and form
b : made manifest or comprehensible : embodied <a fiend incarnate>
You, literally, need to gain a working comprehension of the English language.
you should stay quiet then.you proved it enough.:)

Since: Nov 08

usa

#451327 Jun 13, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Mind your own business. Here's some scripture for you to ponder:
Psalm 52
Against a calumniator
Why do you boast of your wickedness,
you champion of evil,
planning ruin all day long,
your tongue like a sharpened razor,
you master of deceit?
You love evil more than good;
lies more than truth.
You love the destructive word,
you tongue of deceit.
reading this brings the church to mind first thing,they are whicked,evil,liars,deceivers,a nd being around for 2000 yrs,would make them masters of their craft,which appears to be the opposite of what's written in scriptures.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#451328 Jun 13, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>you should stay quiet then.you proved it enough.:)
Great.

Mr. Peanut Gallery has awakened for the day.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#451329 Jun 13, 2013
I don't know if anyone knew this, but saw a commercial on tv last night,apparently the dead sea scrolls are going to be open for public viewing around the country,will be the museum of science here in boston in june,i'm very interested in seeing them.

Since: Sep 09

Terrace, Canada

#451330 Jun 13, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>you have a good point,you only have one source to the existence of a creator and how far can you go with it without constantly repeating yourself
To learn about the religious habits of those in other cultures can teach us more about why we believe the way we believe.

After years of studying the dogmas of other religions, I opened my mind to realize that their beliefs were no more ludicrous than were my own religious beliefs.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#451331 Jun 13, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Faithful Catholics are disgusted with the Kennedy drama. Most likely the local bishop and/or tribunal caved into the undue pressure exerted by the clan and their minions. It's a sad example, but it's not the norm.
JETHRO:they caved in for money,the family wrote the church a 5 figured check,and he was granted then refused the anullment, when the ex-wife went public about what they were doing.

Since: Sep 09

Terrace, Canada

#451332 Jun 13, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>reading this brings the church to mind first thing,they are whicked,evil,liars,deceivers,a nd being around for 2000 yrs,would make them masters of their craft,which appears to be the opposite of what's written in scriptures.
Scriptures are simply handy fodder for users of words.

Supposed devout believers take their own opinions to their favorite human-created books, search out the scriptures that reflect their own desires back to selves, and they are off to the "races," scriptures at the ready to preach long drawn out sermons why the gods or goddesses command them to do this or that.

They refer to that habit of self-indulgence as "preaching GOD's word."

Since: Sep 09

Terrace, Canada

#451333 Jun 13, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>having a marrige anulled is done just for the sole purpose of making money for the church,a divorce is just as good and costs the same.the horrible part is people who really believe in the catholic church,become distraught over an anullment because if children are involved their names are removed from the book of life and become bastard children,and people actually believe that,that is what the fight was about back when joe kennedy wanted his marrige anulled which was going to be granted,thanks to a large 5 figured check,and his ex-wife went public with it,because she did not have the power the kennedy's posses,and that is what bothered her was the fact her childrens names would be removed from the book of life,she thought that was not fair to them (which i agree),they had no part in what happened as far as the marrige goes so why should they be punished?(there not really) and why should the church be doing this? I find it very wrong,they changed their beliefs many times in the past this is one that should be done away with.
Annulment is just a crafty word for divorce.

Since: Sep 09

Terrace, Canada

#451334 Jun 13, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not thinking that they were illiterate in the main; they were illiterate in the main.
Those in power kept the masses illiterate and dumbed down on purpose.

That way, those in power could appear as being the wise ones ... the only capable ones of knowing universal "secrets," et cetera.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#451335 Jun 13, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Annulment is just a crafty word for divorce.
The word 'divorce' seems to have held up pretty well.
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#451336 Jun 13, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>I really don’t like to rub people’s noses in it but when someone wont let it go, I have to step it higher:
CANON 1095 (1983) IS THE PART OF CANON LAW LIKELY EGREGIOUSLY ABUSED BY MANY, PRIMARILY AMERICAN, MARRIAGE TRIBUNALS TO GRANT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ANNULMENTS A YEAR. The Code of Canon Law released in 1983 radically liberalized the grounds for granting annulments by adding a pseudo-psychological provision. The Dean of the Roman Rota, the supreme marriage tribunal of the Church, asks that it be reformed:
Speaking at a conference in Rome, the dean of the Roman Rota suggested the need for a more rigorous interpretation of a provision in canon law that is cited in many annulment cases.
POLISH BISHOP ANTONI STANKIEWICZ, DEAN OF THE ROMAN ROTA, THE VATICAN COURT THAT HANDLES MOST MARRIAGE CASES ANTONI STANKIEWICZ SAID THAT THE CURRENT READING OF CANON 1095 (1983) WOULD SUGGEST THAT “IT’S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET MARRIED, IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT CULTURAL SITUATION.” CANON 1095 STIPULATES THAT A VALID MARRIAGE MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF “CAUSES OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL NATURE.”[THIS IS WHAT I'VE ARGUED HERE FOR SOME TIME. EVEN COUPLES MARRIED FOR DECADES WHO RAISED CHILDREN AND WERE PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WHO EXHIBITED LITTLE OR NO DISCORD, CAN GET ANNULMENTS WHEN ONE OR BOTH PARTIES BECOME DISSATISFIED AND FILE FOR DIVORCE. IT MAKES IT SO THAT, INSTEAD OF MARRIAGE BEING INDISSOLUBLE, IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE AN INDISSOLUBLE MARRIAGE.
All marriages have rocky periods or one or both partners with some psychological shortcoming. Thus, no marriage is really valid, with the way the law is interpreted now] Some Church tribunals—particularly in the US—have interpreted that canon liberally to mean that a marriage can be annulled if the parties show any signs of psychological problems.[Any signs.......think about that]
NOTING THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE ENTIRELY FREE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, POLISH BISHOP ANTONI STANKIEWICZ, DEAN OF THE ROMAN ROTA, THE VATICAN COURT THAT HANDLES MOST MARRIAGE CASES STANKIEWICZ SUGGESTED THAT THE CANON SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM GIVING PROPER CONSENT IN A MARITAL VOW.“We must reaffirm the innate human capacity to marry,” he said.
Nothing is likely to happen until the Canon Law is reformed, and it will be a darned long row to hoe after that. Another element of this trend in tribunal conduct is that, based on their use of psychological problems like immaturity, depression, mania, etc., as grounds for divorce, it can and has been argued that EVERYONE with those problems is not validly married. SUCH LIBERAL INTERPRETATIONS HAVE, THUS, MADE A MOCKERY OF THE SACRAMENT.
Lying about fundamental issues is hardly equivalent to having depression.
Abusing your spouse 2 weeks into the "marriage" is no small issue that "everyone" has.
I'm not sure what your point is nor do I understand your need to "rub my nose" in "it", whatever you meant by "it".

Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#451337 Jun 13, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
775
<quoted text>
Why are Catholics hell-bent in wanting to prove the Word of God in error????
"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"
If I sin against you....and I come back and confess to you that I have sinned against you, per Scripture, you are to forgive me, or God will not forgive you your sins...
But and however...my sin against you, was also a sin against God. Neither you nor your priest has the capability to forgive my sin against Him...
Who was the last person you confessed your sin to?
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#451338 Jun 13, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Sorry can't cut and paste but you can read it HE READ .
He could read because He was God.
The other passage I posted indicated that everyone else was absolutely shocked because they assumed He *couldn't* read because commoners such as Himself were not expected to read because the literacy rate in that area at that time is estimated to be *3* percent. That is *3* people out of 100 people.

Since: Sep 09

Terrace, Canada

#451339 Jun 13, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Jewish scribes wouldn't have transcribed non-Jewish teaching.
Of course they wouldn't, and had Jesus lived neither would he have subscribed anything that was not faithful to Judaism. That's why Christianity is a brand of its own making, the crime being committed by ex-Jew Catholics.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Blagoja 739,649
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 min mike 601,097
Only REAL LOOZERS don't love their mothers who ... 4 min Doctor REALITY 7
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 10 min STU PIDE ASS Xposed 95,519
Word association game (Aug '08) 11 min Bev Jamison 53,317
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 13 min Cjmacintosh 3,110
Last Word + 2 15 min Bev Jamison 714
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 28 min RiccardoFire 259,536
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min Gordon 227,554
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 10 hr Joana 150

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••