Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 596786 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.

Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453220 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, my interpretation of the teachings of a faith I don't practice may not be reliable.
I didn't say "interpretation.."

I asked you about how you judge Islam? I believe you and most of us here have made a judgement.

I base my opinion of a religion on what it produces, the results.

Maybe my question was too confusing, so I'll re-phrase:

Did Jesus tell you to judge them by their words or their deeds?

Now that's simple -- words or deeds?
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#453221 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
It gives you a tremendous drug-induced high to believe that a Jew will come to earth to take you to eternal bliss in a hereafter.
I understand your thoughts. But your thoughts can't manipulate anything but your self.
Thanks for your "opinion" June, but this is just more of the same old "nonsense" that you are so famous for!!!!

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#453222 Jun 17, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry June, but your editorialized "personal opinion" has had "absolutely no effect" (nor ever will) on my own personal faith in Jesus Christ,
I agreed with you. Why are trying to pick a fight with someone who agrees with you?

:)
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable by Ivor H. Evans … First published 1817.

The Opium of the People. A CATCHPHRASE applied to religion. It is derived from Karl Marx (On Hegel’s Philosophy of Law).

Religion is the sigh of the hard-pressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the soul of soulless circumstances. It is the opium of the people.
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453223 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
My (very limited) understanding of the Quaran is that it has approximately 100 verses promulgating war/violence against with the nonbeliever.
So your answer is???
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#453224 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Women can now act as lay ministers too (if that is the right term), administering the Eucharist in special situations.
That's another part of major doctrinal changes with regard to women in the church.
Of course, there have been changes in the highest level of Church dogma.
But if you don't know the levels of belief, how would you know?
No matter, it's all imaginary. That's why you don't bother with such basics.
Which 'major doctrine' is that?

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#453225 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Women's roles such as EME (helping pass out communion) and reading on the altar is "practice".
Their status RE: Ordination is "doctrine".
The Assumption of Mary is relatively recent "dogma", a core principle that must be upheld.
Here's what the Church believes. Please highlight the teachings that have changed.
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."
Killing innocent humans as heretics and witches could be a start.

It's too bad that all too often their actions didn't match up with their flowery words.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453226 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
If you practice a faith, does THAT make the dogmas in which you have the faith reliable???
If so, to be fair, that must mean that all faith in all religion is reliable.
:)
Not to me.

My faith is directed toward finding spiritual truth. Truth isn't subjective, else it fails to be truth.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453227 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
So your answer is???
Answer to what?

You haven't posed a question that I haven't responded to.

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#453228 Jun 17, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your "opinion" June, but this is just more of the same old "nonsense" that you are so famous for!!!!
Did you ever consider that your opinions are nonsense from my perception???

Of doesn't that count?

:)
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453229 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "interpretation.."
I asked you about how you judge Islam? I believe you and most of us here have made a judgement.
I base my opinion of a religion on what it produces, the results.
Maybe my question was too confusing, so I'll re-phrase:
Did Jesus tell you to judge them by their words or their deeds?
Now that's simple -- words or deeds?
Jesus hasn't instructed me to judge Islam (or anyone or anything).
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453230 Jun 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
The division of dogma follow the lines of the division s of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.
(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.
(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.
(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.
(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles' Creed are dogmas — but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.
(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
It's little more to chew on than most proty religions have.
Lot's to chew on.

OK, un-muddy our minds. Next, each dogma has a level of theological belief.

Woman wearing something on their head in church -- what kind of dogma is that and what level of theological belief is that requirement?

You made an assumption without thinking it through.

Here's the point. No one know. Things are rarely specified. Your church has "infallible teachings" that can never change. Amazing!

But even more amazing is the fact that you don't know what your own church's infallible teachings are.

Maybe women covering their head in church was an infallible teaching? You don't know.

The CC has muddied the waters so much, even the most devote believers can't be sure of what is what.

Was Jesus' teachings so complicated, or did the CC make his teachings so?
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#453231 Jun 17, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really?
Yes, really.

We are saved by grace alone, but not by faith alone. Or don't you know you foolish person that faith without works is dead (James 2:20)?
Religion A Delusion

Orlando, FL

#453232 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus hasn't instructed me to judge Islam (or anyone or anything).
Nice two-step.

Silly man. You've been doing some judging here.
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#453233 Jun 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever consider that your opinions are nonsense from my perception???
Of doesn't that count?
:)
I'll take 'B' for $500, Alex.

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#453234 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Jesus tell you to judge them by their words or their deeds?
Now that's simple -- words or deeds?
OH PLEASE!!! Didn't the Catholics and Protestants already do more than enough maligning of the character of that faithful Jew???

If he actually lived, he would have a right to be totally irate at the Christians and Muslims.

:)

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#453235 Jun 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it bothers them so badly because deep down they know the CC teaches the truth. But they want truth to be relative so that they can engage in their favorite sin. It pricks their consciences and they hate it. It's the same spirit of rebellion that prompted satan to remove himself from God's presence.
I guess these rabid anti-catholics are in better position than others who having known the truth but slink silently away never looking back. More than one conversion has happened because someone made an honest attempt to debunk the CC.
Now thats funny...lol...ok ok....I give up....you is the true church...feel better...lol

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#453236 Jun 17, 2013
I find it curious that some here can reduce a 2 post of examples and history to one example/one sentence, thereby feeling that have successfully challenged the argument and therefore can ridicule it.
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#453237 Jun 17, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really?
_________
<have to snip>

__________
I probably could have found more, but I've got a lot of other things to do today.
One other thing, though--I am well aware that Martin Luther was no saint, and he himself would have been the first to agree with that. Some of his writings are deeply troubling, especially those regarding the Jews. Most of these however were written by the old and sick Luther, in the last years of his life, and age and illness have been to known to derail even the most stable people. Luther would have been absolutely horrified if he could have looked 400 years into the future and seen the Nazis using his writings to help justify their atrocities.
Just Sayin, don't waste your time trying to use the fact that Luther was himself a sinful human being to diminish his very real accomplishments or his rediscovery of the fact--FACT--that Christians are saved by GOD'S GRACE ALONE
THROUGH FAITH ALONE
IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE.
It won't work. Trying to use Luther's imperfections to discredit this beautiful, amazing truth will fail as completely as trying to use Martin Luther King's extramarital affairs to discredit him as a man of peace. And if you want an example a bit closer to home, consider this: John Paul II was a great man, beloved all over the world and by many non-Catholics as well. I admired him deeply myself. But long before he died he knew that the Church was protecting thousands of pedophile priests and he helped protect them. It was left to Pope Benedict XVI, less well-known, less well-liked, to grapple with the worst of the problem.
Luther added that word "alone" to his German Bible translation. This is common knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith"[8] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts,[9] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb "alone" was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul's intended meaning.[10]

In those Bible verses you posted (which I had to snip for room), the "works" they are talking about are the "works" of the Old Testament, the sacrificing of animals and the like. God had allowed hundreds of years of these practices in order to show that none of those sacrifices could remit their sins. Now in the NT, those verses were saying that we don't have to go by the ancient levitical works/practices since Jesus, the True Lamb, has fulfilled the Old Covenant. It doesn't mean that we can now sit on our butts, say the magic Jesus words, and wait for the bus to heaven.

And I like how you defend poor Luther like he a big misunderstood teddy bear. He was psychotic and delusional and obsessed with feces, his anus, and with satan. He is the cause of millions of souls being in jeapordy of eternal hell.
Let me ask you something. Does your church say masturbation is a sin?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#453238 Jun 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Lot's to chew on.
OK, un-muddy our minds. Next, each dogma has a level of theological belief.
Woman wearing something on their head in church -- what kind of dogma is that and what level of theological belief is that requirement?
You made an assumption without thinking it through.
Here's the point. No one know. Things are rarely specified. Your church has "infallible teachings" that can never change. Amazing!
But even more amazing is the fact that you don't know what your own church's infallible teachings are.
Maybe women covering their head in church was an infallible teaching? You don't know.
The CC has muddied the waters so much, even the most devote believers can't be sure of what is what.
Was Jesus' teachings so complicated, or did the CC make his teachings so?
We know that women covering their head wasn't "infallible teaching".

Of course, we know what "infallible" actually means in this context. You appear not to.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#453239 Jun 17, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really?
_________
Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith...
...27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
*****
Romans 11:6 And IF BY GRACE, THEN IT CANNOT BE BASED ON WORKS; IF IT WERE, GRACE WOULD NO LONGER BE GRACE.
****
Galatians 2:19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I DO NOT SET ASIDE THE GRACE OF GOD, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
*****
Ephesians 2:8 FOR IT IS BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED, THROUGH FAITH--and this is not from yourselves, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD--9 NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.
*****
Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
__________
I probably could have found more, but I've got a lot of other things to do today.
One other thing, though--I am well aware that Martin Luther was no saint, and he himself would have been the first to agree with that. Some of his writings are deeply troubling, especially those regarding the Jews. Most of these however were written by the old and sick Luther, in the last years of his life, and age and illness have been to known to derail even the most stable people. Luther would have been absolutely horrified if he could have looked 400 years into the future and seen the Nazis using his writings to help justify their atrocities.
Just Sayin, don't waste your time trying to use the fact that Luther was himself a sinful human being to diminish his very real accomplishments or his rediscovery of the fact--FACT--that Christians are saved by GOD'S GRACE ALONE
THROUGH FAITH ALONE
IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE.
It won't work. Trying to use Luther's imperfections to discredit this beautiful, amazing truth will fail as completely as trying to use Martin Luther King's extramarital affairs to discredit him as a man of peace. And if you want an example a bit closer to home, consider this: John Paul II was a great man, beloved all over the world and by many non-Catholics as well. I admired him deeply myself. But long before he died he knew that the Church was protecting thousands of pedophile priests and he helped protect them. It was left to Pope Benedict XVI, less well-known, less well-liked, to grapple with the worst of the problem.
Like Luther you add faith "alone".

And they weren't pedophile priests, they were homosexual predators preying on pubescent and post-pubescent boys.

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) 8 min It aint necessari... 856,164
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 11 min Paul Porter1 1,476
The MOST EVIL human acts OF ALL TIME 15 min andet1987 10
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 20 min waaasssuuup 444,408
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 24 min andet1987 6,170
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 27 min satanlovesyou 5,854
The Christian Atheist debate 36 min ChristINSANITY is... 1,094
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 37 min Bella Italia 612,658
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Rider on the Storm 177,232
More from around the web