Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 703709 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.

June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453091 Jun 17, 2013
From the book, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven … Uta Ranke-Heinemann

The same disapproval of pleasure affected the priestly way of life, which had to be remote from the moral slums of everyday existence. Hostility to marriage logically leads to the celibate life of the priesthood. And so it is no wonder that the great Mariologist and despiser of marriage, Pope Siricus, stood in the orefront of the battle against the marriage of priests. He had a decisive influence on the development of celibacy when in his letter to the Spanish bishop Himerius of Tarragona (385) he labeled it a crimen for priests to continue having relationships with their wives after their ordination. He called that an abscoena cupiditas.(At the beginning of the evolution of celibacy most priests were still married; only after 1139 were priests no longer allowed to marry.)
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453092 Jun 17, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
Where are you Just Sayin'?????
Since the man of God is "thoroughly furnished" by all scripture, inspired of God, unto good works....what else is necessary????!!!! How can he be more "thoroughly furnished"????!!!!
thoroughly: completely
Timothy was a leader in the Church. Of course the Church was to help him on his way to "perfection." He was a member of it.
If the Church is not necessary, as you are saying here, then why did Jesus establish one? Was He just bored?
Why didn't He simply pass out Bibles instead?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453093 Jun 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Fie! You protestants take the same Bible and one decides that baptism is necessary for salvation while the other one says "Nay,'tisn't!"
Is the Bible supposed to stand up, open it's mouth and declare which one is correct?
Ox's pasted post:

"Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God's Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures. "

This paragraph is replete with contradiction.

It admits that the Bible does not contain all knowledge, declares despite this that the Bible contains that which is necessary for Salvation, and then concludes that any teaching not expressed in scripture is subordinate to Scripture.

The conclusion presented isn't IN scripture-it's a statement to ratify the belief, but it isn't scriptural that there's a stratification, by medium, of the authoritative teaching of God's Word.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#453094 Jun 17, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God's Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Fie! You protestants take the same Bible and one decides that baptism is necessary for salvation while the other one says "Nay,'tisn't!"
Is the Bible supposed to stand up, open it's mouth and declare which one is correct?
Let's ask this question as well. Did the Bible stand up, open it's mouth and declare which of your popes was correct in their interpretation? Please do not lie and tell us your theology has never changed. We can and have presented the fallacy of that argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Comprende'
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453095 Jun 17, 2013
Religion was for the most part about theft of property and gaining control over the minds of others who were forced to convert or die.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>

Din Timelines

World History Timelines

755
x - Pippin the Short
b.714-d.sep 24 768 donates land taken from the Lombards to the papacy
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453096 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
But his plan WAS to get married ... so he ordered god to change the doctrines to suit his own will.
But he was not alone. Earlier on even popes were married, and they taught that the god of the Jews ordained THAT to be so.
If you can't see that religion was what the men ordained to be ... you are choosing to stay blind to the lies ... and that onus is on you.
There's no indication that his reforms were aimed at getting himself hitched. He was a priest at the time, was excommunicated in 1520 and met the future Mrs. Luther in 1523.

Affirming your claims that the protestant reformation was undertaken so Martin Luther could get married is actually YOUR burden, June. You claim it, you back it up. That's how it rolls.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453097 Jun 17, 2013
The Catholic empire did not become one of the wealthiest organizations on earth by being kind.

The trail of blood and tears and suffering goes back to the beginning of Catholicism and it's lies that a Jewish god sent his son to earth to save only Catholics.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453098 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
A=lmost to the light.
Soon you will learn our ways.
He was boiled for us, you know.
Hey Religion, over the weekend I read most of the Gospel of the FSM and laughed so hard I peed myself. I hadn't laughed like that in a long time. Thanks!
truth

Huntingdale, Australia

#453099 Jun 17, 2013
Why you against me?
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453100 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no indication that his reforms were aimed at getting himself hitched. He was a priest at the time, was excommunicated in 1520 and met the future Mrs. Luther in 1523.
Affirming your claims that the protestant reformation was undertaken so Martin Luther could get married is actually YOUR burden, June. You claim it, you back it up. That's how it rolls.
You can keep lying if it so pleases you ... but if there is a god that serves only Jews ... you are in over your head with lies upon lies.

I suggest you keep THAT in mind.

You can manipulate other people, but you can't manipulate a god ... if that god just HAPPENS to exist.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453102 Jun 17, 2013
There were countless gods and goddesses created in the imaginations of humans.

Either they all floating around in the upper chambers, or they are not.

My guess is ... they are NOT.

Imagination can't own anything but fluff!
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453103 Jun 17, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>"so"
give the catholic church the right amount of money and the pope will be kissing your feet.
It wasn't the pope that initially granted the annulment. And you know it.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453104 Jun 17, 2013
truth wrote:
Why you against me?
My guess is, your religion is against your own conscience.

If that is true (which might, or might not be the case)... you are at war within your own psyche.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#453105 Jun 17, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
You said, quote, "The sin they committed was sexual in nature. They were told not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That tree was Satan. Want proof? Read the 31st chapter of Ezekiel. Spiritual beings were called trees sometimes and in Ezekiel 31 it states that the "trees" in Eden envied him because of his beauty etc, etc. Now a tree does not have the ability to envy but an angelic being does. Satan sexed Eve up and she conceived Cain by him. Much of what is written in Genesis concerning those events are METAPHORICAL but you misled Christians have made them literal which is why you guys are completely confused as to what really happened in Eden." End quote.
It has been a long time since I have heard anyone speak of the old Serpent seed doctrine? LOL LOL LOL That doctrine is as old as the hills and is a lie from hell. You must be a disciple of William Branham. The serpent spawned Branham and you are his follower. One of your favorite verses to twist is Genesis 3:13. Genesis 3:13, "Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." You interpret the word "deceived" in a sexual context as do all the Branhamites.
According to your theology, the serpent fathered Cain and Adam fathered Abel. That being said, when Cain killed Abel all future generations must be "children of the serpent" because Cain survived and reproduced and Abel, the son of Adam, was dead. What does that make you Tony17? Think about it.
By the way, who are "you misled Christians" you speak of?
You said, quote, "However way back when we also thought as you guys do about what happened in Eden but within the last fifty years or so God has unsealed many things and KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN INCREASED. Glory be to God." End quote.
BOLOGNA. You have been deceived.
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>Tell you what. Ask your dumb pastor to look up the word SEED in Hebrew and read the definition to your dumb carcase.
Try learn how to spell before you begin name calling. Actually, I know exactly what the Hebrew word for seed is. Do you?

Your information regarding the Serpent Seed Doctrine is at best infantile. Do more research and pray the Lord will open your blind eyes to His truth.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453106 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You can keep lying if it so pleases you ... but if there is a god that serves only Jews ... you are in over your head with lies upon lies.
I suggest you keep THAT in mind.
You can manipulate other people, but you can't manipulate a god ... if that god just HAPPENS to exist.
Please point out the "lie" I've told respective to Luther.

Thanks.
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453107 Jun 17, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>christ is the leader of his church,there fore he would be found in his church most of the time,but have yoy ever seen jesus sitting in the papal chair of his church? and it would be a perfect church,not the b.s. we have out there now,doing nothing but coming up with ways to make money,all the killings over the centuries proves they care only about one thing,putting fear into people to join their church,in order to make money.
Um, you do realize that the Church is made up of sinners, right?
I mean that's the whole point of all this. That's why God came to earth, took on our humanity, and suffered and died for us. How can you seriously think that any group of people in the world is going to be "perfect"?
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#453108 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
From the book, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven … Uta Ranke-Heinemann
The same disapproval of pleasure affected the priestly way of life, which had to be remote from the moral slums of everyday existence. Hostility to marriage logically leads to the celibate life of the priesthood. And so it is no wonder that the great Mariologist and despiser of marriage, Pope Siricus, stood in the orefront of the battle against the marriage of priests. He had a decisive influence on the development of celibacy when in his letter to the Spanish bishop Himerius of Tarragona (385) he labeled it a crimen for priests to continue having relationships with their wives after their ordination. He called that an abscoena cupiditas.(At the beginning of the evolution of celibacy most priests were still married; only after 1139 were priests no longer allowed to marry.)
Uta Ranke Heinemann is one persons "opinion" just like thousands of others! My brother-in-law has been a priest for 18 years as a rector in the seminary for new vocations to the priesthood. The seminary has grown from 36 when he was appointed to over 200 today. These young men are all dedicated to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the bible, the Magisterium and the Vatican with Pope Francis...... Emancipated nuns and priests are in the minority and are a "dying breed" of older liberals that are still desperately hanging on to their "outdated" rebellious (do it my way) myths.....They chose to remain "on the outside" (just like you June) continously looking in at the TRUTH of Jesus Christ and His One True Apostolic Catholic Church.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453109 Jun 17, 2013
The wars were driven by religion ... and greed was the main element.

Even Buddhism was not at all free from violence and corruption.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>

World History Timelines

766

x - Japan

The Buddhist priest Dokyo attempts to seize the throne but fails by 770.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#453110 Jun 17, 2013
Tony17 wrote:
Genesis 4:25-26. And Adam again knew his wife Eve and she gave birth to SETH. Now folks the word SETH means APPOINTED and it comes from the word "SHETH" and it is translated .........SUBSTITUTED.
There is no wisdom on this forum.
You are correct and you are at the top of the "lack of wisdom" list.

Strong's H8352 - Sheth Seth = "compensation"
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#453111 Jun 17, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good comments! As a former Protestant (converting to the TRUE GOSPEL of Jesus Christ--in and through His One True Catholic Church), what I have discovered (for over 35 years as a bible only believer) that the entire emphasis of being a bible only Protestant is a total reliance on "attacking the TRUTH of over 1500 years of Catholic Apostolic Church History, particularly condemning and passing their personal opinionated judgement against Jesus Christ and His One True Universal Catholic Church. Protestantism cannot survive on its own without attacking the FULLNESS of the FAITH and the FULLNESS of the TRUTH of the Catholic Church, its TRUTH of doctrine, principles,and teachings that are grounded in Jesus Christ HIMSELF!!
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to hear your conversion story.
Yes, please tell us how you moved from LIGHT to DARKNESS. Converting from truth to Roman Catholic mumbo-jumbo is much like trading in your Mercedes Benz for a roller skate. Do you get the drift?

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 Food and Drinks 996,498
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 24 min No Surprize 88,095
Are millennials more open-minded to LGBTQ dating? 33 min Freedom of speech 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 56 min Moo Goo Guy Pan 448,493
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 1 hr Grunt56 223,078
Last post wins (May '13) 5 hr Hatti_Hollerand 543
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 6 hr Wisdom of Ages 6,918