Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 549,029
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#452893 Jun 16, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for speaking up for the truth!!!!!
Actually, every Catholic knows that if they want their sins to be forgiven, they go through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). They do not seek an indulgence to have sins forgiven. That is not what an indulgence is for. That is basic Catholic knowledge.

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#452894 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Very few of your protestant brethren who call themselves Christian confess, believe and teach the creed.
How on earth would you know really?

If I confess to my Lord Jesus,you are nit there

If our Church pray e the creed are you there

Are you even allowed to participate in our services??

I am asking respectfully Anthony

Both sides who have had no experience in the other have some really crazy idea of what the other side does in worship.

That US why your Blessed Pope called for Unity..to bring us together.

We can talk about our differences..But why nit learn a bit too.

I went to a Catholic Church fir stations..this us nit forbidden by my faith.

Have you attended a Baptist worship I doubt it.

I had some odd ideas about them too as a,Catholic.

I found these people among the most loving and believing people U had ever met.

The ritual of Mass US beautiful. But I feel closer in a less ritualistic service..But at least I know about both BEFore I speak..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#452895 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The "pardon" comes in the sacrament of confession. An indulgence is not for the forgiveness or pardon of sin, it is for the remission of the punishment of sin.
That sounds like a similar type argument I heard when two old friends were in a heated argument...finally one stands up and says: Look....I never ever said your wife has warts on her stomach!!!! I only said it felt like she had warts on her stomach!!!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#452896 Jun 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Having a high I.Q. doesn't make anyone wise.
The point was that deceitful persons used some statement Einstein made to obfuscate and twist his true beliefs to their advantage-which was dishonest. Can you guess who it was?=Christian apologetic twisters...and they STILL try to do it.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#452897 Jun 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see...
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Godís command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible...
...6 And WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD, BECAUSE ANYONE WHO COMES TO HIM MUST BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS AND THAT HE REWARDS THOSE WHO EARNESTLY SEEK HIM.
__________
Read that again, June.
"WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD"
I don't think God is interested in "dogma" so much as He is in whether we believe He exists and whether we love Him.
Well, by all means...if he wants to be believed, have him show up and prove he exists.
Who in hell wants to please some deity that doesn't even exist. It would be like kicking sand in a rat hole.
Is that what you are doing?
I don't care to appear to be that stupid.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#452898 Jun 16, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
How sanctimonious you are with your haughty attitude that YOU are loved by a god, and others are not.
I don't want another homosexual taking his/her life because some stupid preacher grabbed a bible and preached that homosexuals will go to hell for having sexual contact with each other.
I refer to my care of homosexuals as the closest emotion I can have to love.
How about YOU???
Do you use words in your bible to believe that homosexuals will go to hell, while you on your high horse go to heaven???
You can take your buy-bull and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
June....you dont know me as a person. I AM A FAR CRY FROM HAUGHTY. I do not homosexual for it is NOT my place to judge them.I treat those around me with respect IF they treat me the same.And I am Not on a HIGH HORSE to Heaven.I will be lucky if I get there on a pony. You have so much anger in you for those who do believe in God.If you choose not to believe,its up to you.Well,I choose to believe.Honestly,I have never seen someone whos so full of meaness as yourself and I feel sorry for you.I say this because I care.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#452899 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Full Question
One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?
Answer
That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-t...
My question; do TV evangelicals like Benny Hinn and so many others not participate in even worse behavior as their own private fortunes are from gullible poor fools?
Was he excommunicated for it? If not, it was condoned by the established church. End of story.
Are these televangelists cathaholics? Then there is no need for comparisons, is there...unless you are trying for deflection from the original posit.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#452900 Jun 16, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is certainly in that which is unseen.
But we feel His presence in our souls.
I prefer to believe I will see Him someday..rather than have NO hope .
You can make believe all you want. It doesn't change the facts of reality and actuality.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#452901 Jun 16, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a perfect example of people who claim to be Christians, which the Bible identifies as followers of Christ, by their very beliefs, say they are frauds...
the Athanasian Creed: No one knows who wrote the thing!!!!!!
Don't be silly. Yes, it's accepted today that Athanasius himself probably didn't write the Creed that bears his name. It's named after him because he staunchly upheld what the Creed says.

----------
"A medieval account credited Athanasius of Alexandria, the famous defender of Nicene theology, as the author of the Creed. According to this account, Athanasius composed it during his exile in Rome...This traditional attribution of the Creed to Athanasius was first called into question in 1642...and it has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius...Athanasius' name seems to have become attached to the creed as a sign of its strong declaration of Trinitarian faith."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

__________


Why would that be a problem? We don't call the Apostles' Creed "the Apostles' Creed" because we think somebody named "Apostle" wrote it. We don't call the Nicene Creed "the Nicene Creed" because we think somebody called "Nicene" wrote it (it was developed by the Council of Nicaea under Constantine), and we don't call the Pledge of Allegiance the "Pledge of Allegiance" because we think somebody named Allegiance wrote it.
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#452902 Jun 16, 2013
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>June....you dont know me as a person. I AM A FAR CRY FROM HAUGHTY. I do not homosexual for it is NOT my place to judge them.I treat those around me with respect IF they treat me the same.And I am Not on a HIGH HORSE to Heaven.I will be lucky if I get there on a pony. You have so much anger in you for those who do believe in God.If you choose not to believe,its up to you.Well,I choose to believe.Honestly,I have never seen someone whos so full of meaness as yourself and I feel sorry for you.I say this because I care.
You care but June doesn't Sere.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#452903 Jun 16, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical facts do show that the Roman Catholic Church have always taught that the selling of indulgences was illegal. Martin Luther was referring only to some of the priests in Germany. There were a few Catholic priests in Germany who did not follow Catholic teachings and sold indulgences. The selling of indulgences was not widespread and some people think. It was only limited to a few errant priests in Germany.
However and but....the people selling indulgences were Catholic clergy...and if Luther could see the gross wrongness, so could every other Catholic clergy...including the pope...Luther was the only one to speak up....

The sale of indulgences was a byproduct of the Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries. Because they risked dying without the benefit of a priest to perform the appropriate ceremonies, Crusaders were promised immediate salvation if they died while fighting to "liberate" the Christian holy city at Jerusalem. Church leaders justified this by arguing that good works earned salvation, and making Jerusalem accessible to Christians was an example of a good work. Over time, Church leaders decided that paying money to support good works was just as good as performing good works, and it evened things up for people who were physically incapable of fighting a Crusade. Over several centuries, the practice expanded, and Church leaders justified it by arguing that they had inherited an unlimited amount of good works from Jesus, and the credit for these good works could be sold to believers in the form of indulgences. In other words, indulgences functioned like "confession insurance" against eternal damnation because, if you purchased an indulgence, then you wouldn't go to hell if you died suddenly or forgot to confess something.

A. The 12th and 13th centuries equal 200 years....that is much more than "a little while"...

B. NOTE: Church leaders justified this by arguing that good works earned salvation, and making Jerusalem accessible to Christians was an example of a good work. "Church leaders" include da pope....

C. HEY ANTHONY!!!!! Look!!!!"In other words, indulgences functioned like "confession insurance" against eternal damnation because, if you purchased an indulgence, then you wouldn't go to hell if you died suddenly or forgot to confess something."

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#452904 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I agree with you about the creeds, the problem is the fundamentalist evangelicals don't, and they'll tell you that.
Who ars you referring to really .

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#452905 Jun 16, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, by all means...if he wants to be believed, have him show up and prove he exists.
Who in hell wants to please some deity that doesn't even exist. It would be like kicking sand in a rat hole.
Is that what you are doing?
I don't care to appear to be that stupid.
Then why are you working so hard to look stupid?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#452906 Jun 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
The Apostles' Creed is one of the three great ecumenical Creeds of Christendom, which are believed, confessed, taught and upheld by ALL denominations worthy of being called "Christian" and is the oldest of the three.(The other two are the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed).
For some reason, the word "creed" seems to put people off nowawdays. I don't know why, because a "creed" is simply a brief statement of what one believes.
Only the Lord Himself can see into a person's heart and know who truly belongs to Him and who does not. Having said that, however, and speaking ONLY for myself, I accept as Christian any person or denomination who holds to the core doctrinal truths contained and expressed in the Creeds. I say "holds to" because there are many Christians who believe what the Creeds say, even though they may not be able to recite the Creeds themselves. Baptists, for instance, certainly uphold the doctrinal basics in the Creeds, although they are usually not trained to memorize the Creeds themselves.
Here is the Apostles' Creed, in its entirety:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic* Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
* catholic means "universal" and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.
So, you are saying that the RCC was not in any way connected to the canonization of the holy bible, or the creed, nor the doctrine of trinity.
That's a new one..so where do they fit in the picture?
Are you completely ignorant of the history of your religion? Or are you completely brainwashed?

Carry on...This is really good stuff...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#452907 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Indulgences do not "pardon past sins" you idiot.
C. HEY ANTHONY!!!!! Look!!!!"In other words, indulgences functioned like "confession insurance" against eternal damnation because, if you purchased an indulgence, then you wouldn't go to hell if you died suddenly or forgot to confess something."

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#452908 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The "pardon" comes in the sacrament of confession. An indulgence is not for the forgiveness or pardon of sin, it is for the remission of the punishment of sin.
C. HEY ANTHONY!!!!! Look!!!!"In other words, indulgences functioned like "confession insurance" against eternal damnation because, if you purchased an indulgence, then you wouldn't go to hell if you died suddenly or forgot to confess something."

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#452909 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a follower of Luther are you?
Your best bet in this discussion would be to locate any official Church teaching wherein the selling of indulgences is permitted.
Are you having a difficult time denying historical facts...based on an eye witness and participant thereof????!!!!

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#452910 Jun 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
There was indeed "outright selling of indulgences." This was the tipping point where Martin Luther was concerned: he was sick over the claim by the Catholic Church (of that time) that salvation could be purchased by money or any other means.
The Popes of that day, Julius II and Leo X (1513Ė1521)wanted to build this modest little dwelling we know today as St. Peter's Basilica.
______
"Pope Julius II planned far more for St Peter's than Nicholas V's program of repair or modification. Julius was at that time planning his own tomb, which was to be designed and adorned with sculpture by Michelangelo and placed within St Peter's. In 1505 Julius made a decision to demolish the ancient basilica and replace it with a monumental structure to house his enormous tomb and "aggrandize himself in the popular imagination".
_____
Such a huge, elaborate structure wasn't going to be cheap.
_____
"One method employed to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica was the granting of indulgences in return for contributions. A major promoter of this method of fund-raising was Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, who had to clear debts owed to the Roman Curia by contributing to the rebuilding program. To facilitate this, he appointed the German Dominican preacher Johann Tetzel, whose salesmanship provoked a scandal.
A German Augustinian priest, Martin Luther, wrote to Archbishop Albrecht arguing against this "selling of indulgences". He also included his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences", which came to be known as The 95 Theses. This became a factor in starting the Reformation, the birth of Protestantism."
__________
Both quotes above are from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_B...
I have a great deal of respect for the Roman Catholic Church, and I particularly admire its uncompromising stance on the value of human life. But there's no point in covering up the mistakes of the past, in the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church (including my own LCMS), American history or any other place. Better to face them squarely and learn from them.
the thruth shall set you free..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#452911 Jun 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
It was financed PARTLY by donations, yes. Fortunately for the peace of mind of millions of Christians then and now, financing it THROUGH EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL failed.
Anthony, I happen to be glad that St. Peter's was built. Among other things, it's a very beautiful building, and is appropriately important to and symbolic of Christians worldwide. But you seem to be trying to whitewash a dark chapter in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Denying that the RCC of the 16th century used unethical--unCHRISTIAN practices--to raise money, not just for building programs but for other things is just plain inaccurate. It is also defeatist, because when you attempt to rationalize the wrongs of the past, you call into question the trustworthiness of the Church today.
I could not have said that better!!!!!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#452912 Jun 16, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
St. Peter's was financed with donations. It's the spiritual home to 1.2 billion Catholic Christians 500 years later, open to us all. Today's televangelists finance their personal fortunes with donations. Hardly a fair comparison.
It is all the same con. If you can prove your deity exists, then we might consider it different.

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
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 4 min Rosa_Winkel 96,169
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Buck Crick 751,479
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 9 min Chris Clearwater 174,428
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 21 min Rick Moss 37,282
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 26 min Innocent Holy dr ... 602,325
How to tell when a Topix poster doesn't have a ... 32 min Rosa_Winkel 57
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 33 min andet1987 4,795
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 33 min Dave Nelson 230,159
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 59 min Dr_Zorderz 261,737
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 1 hr Isb 1,077

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE