Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665423 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.

Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453127 Jun 17, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
there is a season to everything under the sun, the Catholic's time is almost over.
No one mocks God, not even the catholic church, no matter how big They think they are; God is bigger.
We know from history the catholic church is not from God, it is a man made institution to in slave men with fear.
They have butchered, raped, stole, tortured their way across Europe. Does that sound like a PURE HOLY CHURCH with out blemish .
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT GOD IS COMING FOR.
THAT PRAY TO IDOLS DEAD PEOPLE AND HAVE MARY AS THEIR GODDESS.
MAKING HER A QUEEN OF HEAVEN SITTING IN THE PLACE THAT IS FOR GOD ALONE.
THEY HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR, MORE THEN HALF OF THE PRIEST AND ALL THE POPE SHOULD BE IN JAIL, FOR THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ,
BUT FEAR NOT GOD WILL NOT BE MOCK, AND IT IS HIM THEY ARE GOING TO ANSWER TO.
WE ARE NOT TO DELIGHT IN THIS, BUT PRAY THAT THEY WILL BE TURNED, BACK TO GOD.
Simmer down and stop slandering. Don't you know that you will be judged as well?
You will have to account for every idle word you say and every lie you spout.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453128 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Please point out the "lie" I've told respective to Luther.
Thanks.
Luther changed the dogmas in the pretense that a god wanted members of clergy to marry.

You are trying to claim that the reformation was not about Luther wanting to get married.

I believe all religion is a lie, so no matter what you try to support in concern with the words of your favorite theologians it will based on lies ... not ownership of truth.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453129 Jun 17, 2013
If all the supposed holy books did not exist ... preachers could not fight over the meanings of the words.

Imagine how dull their lives would be if they couldn't PREACH and fight over who is right.

Just imagine.
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#453130 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that clouded thinking can be blamed on the times we are in.
From my perspective clouded thinking (or confusion) is normal.
When people are certain they have found absolute truth, they are often determined to try to force others to follow their lead, and when they can't do that, they often end up frustrated and in turn their presence frustrates others.
I'm quite comfortable with the idea that I don't know answers to mysteries, and that it is simply what it is.
I'd like to do away with suffering, but that's not realistic, so I do the best I can with what comes my way ... and from my perspective, no one can do better than his/her best.
June:

I suppose you are correct, in that confusion is the norm, in any age.

The problem of which you speak is a common one as well, and generally one needs to first eat some humble pie before they go questing after truth, and then eat another piece of that pie after finding it.

I love humble pie.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#453131 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.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Please point out the "lie" I've told respective to Luther.
Thanks.
Of course, you have NOT told June any lies respective to Luther.

Luther posted his 95 THESES in 1517 in Wittenberg, Germany, and the Pope of the day excommunicated him in 1520. Meanwhile, his teachings had spread like wildfire throughout Germany.

In 1523, a group of 12 nuns, inspired by Luther's teachings, escaped their cloister ("escaped" because they would never have been PERMITTED to leave) with the help of a respected merchant and leading citizen, one Leonard Kopp, and Luther himself.

Once they had escaped, what was to be done with them? Three of them returned to their own homes, while the remaining nine waited for arranged marriages. Naturally, since Luther was single, his friends repeatedly suggested that he marry one of the ex-nuns himself. He rejected the idea, "not because he was a sexless stone, nor because he was hostile to marriage, but because he expected daily the death of a heretic."--"HERE I STAND: A LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER, Roland H. Bainton

By 1525, all the nuns had been married except one, a 26 year old woman named Katherina von Bora. In the 16th century, 26 was considered a bit long in the tooth for a first marriage :) so her position was delicate. Although two or three matches had been attempted for Katherina, all had fallen through for one reason or another. The latest suggestion was one Dr. Glatz, whom she couldn't stand :) Finally, she asked the help of a visitor to Wittenberg, a Dr. Magdeberg, who conveyed a message to Luther. She would accept either Magdeberg himself or Luther.

Luther had never had any intention of marrying. His father, however, had other ideas. He was a very successful merchant who had been deeply displeased when his son Luther chose the Church as his career instead of becoming a merchant like his father. When Luther told him about the idea of his marrying Katherina, he meant it as a joke, but his father took it seriously :) He wanted to pass on the family name. And Luther began to see the idea in a different light. He fully expected to be burned at the stake within a year, so starting a family THEN could only be seen as defiance at anything that might happen to him. Also, he would rescue Katherina from her dilemma.

"He summed up by giving three reasons for his marriage: to please his father, to spite the Pope and the Devil, and to seal his witness before martyrdom." --"HERE I STAND: A LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER, Roland H. Bainton

In short, Luther's reasons for marrying were practical in nature, not for love. But he and Katie (whom he called "my rib"!) fell genuinely and deeply in love after they were married. Katherina was an excellent housekeeper, which as Luther's household was continually expanding through the years (many students, etc. lived with the Luthers), having a well-run domestic life was in itself a considerable contribution to Luther's work.

The Luthers had six children together. And by the way, Katherina was no doormat. She fully supported her husband's work, but she was never afraid to speak her mind to him.

I absolutely LOVE their story! Always have :)
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453132 Jun 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
The Gospel of FSM does say that He (accidentaly) drowned the world except for Noah and the ark. That's the part that made me laugh the hardest.
Sure, accidents happen. Silly me.

Thank you for calling that to my attention. This allows me to correct my beliefs.

No one has died because of my God, except through accidents.

Ramen

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#453133 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
No matter what is posted, those in Christianity will insist that a god of the Jews favors Christians.
Imagine Ann Coulter bragging to a Jew that Christians are "perfected" Jews.
The arrogance and the stupidity is beyond belief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2wnPHFSdrMEXX
And hey what about all those Catholic politicians who are fervently pro voice in their voting.

Ann Counter does not speak for all Christians .
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453134 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
Notice Jesus' myopia!!!!!!!!
If you think about Jesus, you realize that his biggest problem is an incredible case of myopia. We can see this myopia quite clearly as we look back at Jesus' time on earth.
The obvious question that any intelligent person is forced to ask is this:
If Jesus is God, then why didn't Jesus use his omniscience and omnipotence to actually do something magnificent and beautiful on earth rather than squandering his "power" as he does in the Bible?
Think about all the problems that Jesus could have solved. At the very least, Jesus could have transcribed passages into the Bible that would have ended sexism, racism and slavery forever.
As the simplest example, think of all of the suffering that slavery has caused. Yet Jesus did nothing of the sort. Instead, Jesus endorsed slavery.
At a larger level, if Jesus were God, he could have performed so many real miracles. He could have, for example, eliminated smallpox and a host of other diseases that science is busy eliminating today. Jesus could have given the people of Israel the knowledge that they would need to start a technological society and raise themselves above the primitive living conditions of the day.
The argument could be made that Jesus did try to solve poverty when he said that you should sell everything you own and give it to the poor.
However, in saying this, Jesus showed a complete misunderstanding of human nature. Do you know of any Christians who have sold all their possessions and given the money to the poor? Since the earliest church fathers, there have been very few.
Instead, Jesus could have taught mankind to effectively share wealth so that the immense problem of global poverty that we see today would have been solved long ago.
Most importantly, Jesus could have made his message so clear, and the proof of his godliness so obvious, that all 7 billion people on the planet would have aligned with him, rather than fragmenting into dozens of bizarre and often warring religions.
By doing this, Jesus could have completely prevented the Crusades and 9/11, among many other things.
Instead, he did none of this.
To any rational person, these problems make it painfully obvious that Jesus was a normal human being. The fact that Jesus was a normal human being renders the entire New Testament of the Bible meaningless, and in the process shows us that the God of the Bible is completely imaginary.
Jesus did do "something magnificent and beautiful" while on Earth. He established His Church which has been a light to the whole world illuminating the way to Him.
He didn't wave a magic wand and take away free will. If He had of done as you think He should have, He would have been the biggest tyrant ever.
You are thinking like the Jews thought, that the Savior King was going to come as a mighty ruler here on earth and solve everyone's earthly/material problems. That's not what Jesus came to do. The perfect utopia is not going to happen until His second coming and there will be a new heaven and a new earth.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453135 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Luther changed the dogmas in the pretense that a god wanted members of clergy to marry.
You are trying to claim that the reformation was not about Luther wanting to get married.
I believe all religion is a lie, so no matter what you try to support in concern with the words of your favorite theologians it will based on lies ... not ownership of truth.
I'm not sure that the Reformation was anchored in the desire for clerical marriage.

Can you cite evidence to support this claim you're making?
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453136 Jun 17, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone with half an ounce of brain....and it does not take any sort of Spirituality to see the trashing of the Bible you people are guilty of..
God's Word says: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Catholics says.."God got it wrong..again...Mary was sinless...
Ok, so you must believe that preborn babies have sinned? Newborns have sinned? The profoundly retarded have sinned? Ancephalic babies have sinned?
And also Jesus has sinned?

The verse does say "ALL", doesn't it?
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#453137 Jun 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't twist my words. I know there is truth, beauty., and goodness. I don't believe they are the product of your particular deity, I thought that was made quite clear in the preceding post.
If you twist that arrangement of words in an effort to obfuscate or deflect, I will correct you.
You picked one word of an entire post, and neglected the overall message.
Black Thunder 42:

Sorry. I misunderstood your post. And so I went around to another direction, to challenge your understanding. It is often difficult to challenge another's understanding, or broaden their way of thinking, which was my intention, and still is, without some misunderstandings in the attempt.

So, for one to have memories, there must be an object of that memory. Likewise, for there to be a reflection in a mirror, there must be an object as well.

Can you agree to these two points, that there must be objects?
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453138 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
The ex-Jew Catholics opened up the old testament ... changed meanings of the words, added their story of a Jesus-myth and presto ... up came a supposed new testament based on new lies that claimed truth as it's own.
Your religion is nothing special. Lies can't BE special.
Religion is theory from the get-go ... nothing more ... nothing less. You no more know the future than does a butterfly.
I think you give religion too much credit. A theory is a rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, usually put forth for the purpose of further measuring and testing.

Religion is based on myth, with no rational, real world evidence required. Few believers seek to test or measure a religious myth.

If evidence appears to refute a theory, then that theory is reworked or dismissed as refuted.

No amount of real-world, real-life evidence will cause true believers to dismiss their chosen myth.
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453139 Jun 17, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
"No one has died for my God. No one has been tortured for my God."
Too bad. I guess your God isn't worth caring about. MINE is, however.
(Correction, no one has died because of my God, except by accident.)

That is a great post!!!

You say my nonviolent "God isn't worth caring about."

You like the gods of murder and torture.

You sound like fun. I agree, my God is dull compared to gods of stoning, genocide, burning of witches etc. I'll bet you have a great time on weekends :o)
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453140 Jun 17, 2013
Catholic Church double-speak....

Re: Indulgences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence (see Abuses):

"Professional "pardoners" - who were sent to collect alms for a specific project - practiced the unrestricted sale of indulgences. Many of these quaestores exceeded Church teachings, whether in avarice or ignorant zeal, and promised impossible rewards like salvation from eternal damnation in return for money."

The Vatican was not so shocked at the abuses that they refused the money raised.
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453141 Jun 17, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
<snip>

Luther maintained that salvation was BY FAITH ALONE (sola fide) without reference to good works, alms, penance, or the Church's sacraments. Luther maintained that the sacraments were a "means of grace," meaning that while grace was imparted through the Sacraments, the credit for the action belonged to God and not to the individual.
He had also challenged the authority of the Church by maintaining that all doctrines and dogmata of the Church not found in Scripture should be discarded (sola scriptura)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms
__________
I don't believe Luther "IMPLEMENTED" sola Scriptura, in the sense that he decided "Hey, this is a good rule to follow." He did, however, at the Diet of Worms (1521) and at the risk of his life, refuse to recant his "heresy" by his famous statement [paraphrased] "Unless I can be convinced by Scripture and by plain reason, HERE I STAND. I can do no other."
Faith Alone is an invention of Luther's. He inserted that word "alone" into Scripture. And yes, he absolutely DID invent sola scriptura as well, believing "hey, this is a good rule to follow" because that allowed him to justify his egregious actions.

You want to know what else he said?

"Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom ... Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil ... Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever." [4]

"...with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation,(man) has no 'free-will', but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan."[7]

“Reason is the devils handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.”[14]

No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day."[18]

"Good works are bad and are sin like the rest." -[23]

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!”–“If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[29]

“ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”[36]

“If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”[39]

“To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself”[48]

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologeti...

Did you know that Luther was obsessed with Satan and would have regular conversations and encounters with him?
Did you know that Luther wanted to put Satan up his butt?

And Luther is the spiritual father of all protestantism.
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453142 Jun 17, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Very few of your protestant brethren who call themselves Christian confess, believe and teach the creed.
The denomination called "Church of Christ" explicitely refuses to hold to any creed whatsoever.
They act like it is a terrible thing to do. To me it just looks like the really don't know what they believe.
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453143 Jun 17, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the Church never taught selling indulgences or torture of the Jews. Those things were done by bad guys contrary to Church teachings.
Bl. John Paul II apologized for those bad guys.
--------
Historical facts per a participant and an eye witness...Luther.....
31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
48 Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
" Martin Luther was constipated, both with spirituality and with poop.( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3944549.stm ). He suffered terrible, painful bouts and spent hours on his stone throne working it out."
http://onefootwalking.wordpress.com/2010/03/1...

"Luther's lavatory thrills experts


Martin Luther was candid about his constipation
Archaeologists in Germany say they may have found a lavatory where Martin Luther launched the Reformation of the Christian church in the 16th Century.
The stone room is in a newly-unearthed annex to Luther's house in Wittenberg.

Luther is quoted as saying he was "in cloaca", or in the sewer, when he was inspired to argue that salvation is granted because of faith, not deeds. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3944549.stm

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453144 Jun 17, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Of course, you have NOT told June any lies respective to Luther.
Luther posted his 95 THESES in 1517 in Wittenberg, Germany, and the Pope of the day excommunicated him in 1520. Meanwhile, his teachings had spread like wildfire throughout Germany.
In 1523, a group of 12 nuns, inspired by Luther's teachings, escaped their cloister ("escaped" because they would never have been PERMITTED to leave) with the help of a respected merchant and leading citizen, one Leonard Kopp, and Luther himself.
Once they had escaped, what was to be done with them? Three of them returned to their own homes, while the remaining nine waited for arranged marriages. Naturally, since Luther was single, his friends repeatedly suggested that he marry one of the ex-nuns himself. He rejected the idea, "not because he was a sexless stone, nor because he was hostile to marriage, but because he expected daily the death of a heretic."--"HERE I STAND: A LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER, Roland H. Bainton
By 1525, all the nuns had been married except one, a 26 year old woman named Katherina von Bora. In the 16th century, 26 was considered a bit long in the tooth for a first marriage :) so her position was delicate. Although two or three matches had been attempted for Katherina, all had fallen through for one reason or another. The latest suggestion was one Dr. Glatz, whom she couldn't stand :) Finally, she asked the help of a visitor to Wittenberg, a Dr. Magdeberg, who conveyed a message to Luther. She would accept either Magdeberg himself or Luther.
Luther had never had any intention of marrying. His father, however, had other ideas. He was a very successful merchant who had been deeply displeased when his son Luther chose the Church as his career instead of becoming a merchant like his father. When Luther told him about the idea of his marrying Katherina, he meant it as a joke, but his father took it seriously :) He wanted to pass on the family name. And Luther began to see the idea in a different light. He fully expected to be burned at the stake within a year, so starting a family THEN could only be seen as defiance at anything that might happen to him. Also, he would rescue Katherina from her dilemma.
"He summed up by giving three reasons for his marriage: to please his father, to spite the Pope and the Devil, and to seal his witness before martyrdom." --"HERE I STAND: A LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER, Roland H. Bainton
In short, Luther's reasons for marrying were practical in nature, not for love. But he and Katie (whom he called "my rib"!) fell genuinely and deeply in love after they were married. Katherina was an excellent housekeeper, which as Luther's household was continually expanding through the years (many students, etc. lived with the Luthers), having a well-run domestic life was in itself a considerable contribution to Luther's work.
The Luthers had six children together. And by the way, Katherina was no doormat. She fully supported her husband's work, but she was never afraid to speak her mind to him.
I absolutely LOVE their story! Always have :)
Luther wanted to get married ... so he ordered the god of the Jews in the sky to ordain Luther's command.

Religion was always FUN for the theologians that changed the dogmas to suit their own pleasures.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#453145 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you give religion too much credit. A theory is a rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, usually put forth for the purpose of further measuring and testing.
Religion is based on myth, with no rational, real world evidence required. Few believers seek to test or measure a religious myth.
If evidence appears to refute a theory, then that theory is reworked or dismissed as refuted.
No amount of real-world, real-life evidence will cause true believers to dismiss their chosen myth.
Those in religion idolize only their own myths.

That is what made it so easy for theologians who hated each other to divide and conquer the minds of gullible believers.
Just Sayin

Nashville, TN

#453146 Jun 17, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of the mainline protestant denominations still recite a creed. Very few, if any, non-denominational communities do. I haven't been to a baptist service in a long time, so if they started doing it, I'm in error.
Bl. John Paul did call for unity, so did Benedict and now Francis. I doubt many fundamentalist evangelicals will heed the call unfortunately.
When I was a baptist, they never recited a creed at their services. They in fact officially shy away from "creedalism".
Their website says:

"In some groups, statements of belief have the same authority as Scripture. We call this creedalism. Baptists also make statements of belief, but all of them are revisable in light of Scripture. "

In other words, their statements of belief can be revised according to a different interpretation of Scripture.

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
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 min Pegasus 284,610
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 14 min Buck Crick 232
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 15 min Ricky F 184,766
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 46 min Elerby 977,412
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 1 hr Joe Fortuna 619
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 1 hr gundee123 1,243
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Joe Fortuna 88,296
The Future of Politics in America 7 hr Buck Crick 270
More from around the web