Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 599406 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.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460494 Jul 9, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>never thought about it that way, god has a plan for us, so how can he carry out his plan if all these so called saints are butting in? wish someone can tell me what his plan is, except to be born live work till your 65 then get old and die, things haven't changed since before man starting walking upright.
God has a plan! How funny! If a god exists he enjoys keeping people in the dark and watching them fight about who owns the light.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460495 Jul 9, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>glad that you have seen his words before, I went on supposition, you have had knowledge as to how unstable that Robert is.
We're all unstable, so Robert is just one of the gang.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460496 Jul 9, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Theology fights.
Whadda hoot.
:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460497 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Clay"
These are matters that we can only speculate on...certainly we shouldn't argue them.
OH don't stop now. The show is just getting good!

Who's UP next?

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460498 Jul 9, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>why would you resort to this ignorant response.
Hahahahahahahahaha

If is there any type OF response?

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460499 Jul 9, 2013
Typ-oh

Is there any other type OF response?

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460500 Jul 9, 2013
It's just too bad that people in religion don't have mental boxing gloves.

I'd pay to see that entertainment.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460501 Jul 9, 2013
Here's some physical religious entertainment.

Love in action!

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460502 Jul 9, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't know "ANYTHING" historically or biblically true because you are "stuck on" bible only heresy and editorializing (making it up) as you go along, in which your "personal opinion" is the final authority
Personal opinion dictating what a god ordains always has the final word to the right-fighters in all religions.

Right-fighting is what keeps on feeding the religious disputes.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#460503 Jul 9, 2013
LTM wrote:
The Earth is not dying, it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.”-Utah Phillips @ http://goo.gl/X721a
if the world really heads toward destruction???

I'd look up not sideways.

It will end when we have a,New,Earth
BEFORE that will come destruction.

But nit from man made global warming

Weather runs in cycles..

Every few,decades..And a lot in our hemisphere is due to LaNINA/El nino..

LaNina cooling in the waters to the West of South America.
COOLING ..Is bad for our weather But now it's,Neutral which is also bad as in hurricanes and tornados.

It's all natural cycles put in place
When God created the e world

Should we be good stewards. YES.

RECYCLING ..GOOD.

But listening to people who buy CARBON CREDITS ..FLY IN PRIVATE JETS

LIVE IN MANSIONS..WON T SLLOW WIND FARMS OFF THEIR SUMMER HOMES..
AND MAKE MONEY FROM THIS LOAD OF GARBAGE.

A couple of years ago they had some speeches scheduled..That had to be cancelled for snow

Miraculously it is NO LONGER GLOBAL WARMING ..ITS CLIMSTE change

The climate changes regularly

I have lived in Fla since the Sixties...hurricanes ..lots..then about t thirty years of relative peace..now active AGAIN.

One thing affects ..the effects of weather. Paving ..dies not let water soak in...BUT THE RIAN WOULD COME IN ANY WAY ..

HERE WE HAVE Water Management...They divert water..But politics affects that ...But in full Moon..And high tide ..They mske it flow east ...trapping water inland ..lucky us .

But the water is natural ..those people do not cause high tide or a ful.moon.

Add Sandy ..voila ..No beach ..streets flooded .

That is Man doing stupid things in order to please politicians .

The water should go as always to the Everglades. But oh my the alligators. The birds..

Who have live there forever just fine.

It's all ..this Climat change a big ploy for a take over of everything..
We are losing jobs and they want to make it harder for companies to survive.

sorry but this saying we can do what only God will do annoys me

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#460504 Jul 9, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree given the choice between the two, religion should be outlawed world wide, I see more harm than good coming from it,lets take the train wreck in Canada the break was tampered with, why didn't god intervene and stop the person who tampered with the train? and why didn't he stop the plane in san Francisco from crashing? all these type things happen on a daily basis around the world, and we're suppose to believe we have a loving god watching over us, for what? to see what new stupidity we can get ourselves into on a daily basis? obviously he does nothing to help, and this joke about the saint hood for the two popes we are suppose to believe they committed miracles to gain saint hood and yet god sits in his chair an does nothing? what's wrong with this picture.
Free will

He set the earth eith natural laws.

He set people with free will.

He does no micromanage.

But this outlawing of religion is an idea to be very afraid of ..

Imo

Why do people who do nit believe in God blame Him for everything
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#460505 Jul 9, 2013
Papal Rome against the Bible
by Steve Wohlberg

From the 1200s to the 1800s, Papal leaders openly condemned the reading of the Bible in the vernacular (the language of the common people) and even persecuted those caught with copies of the Scriptures in their possession. Because Bible Societies (beginning in the 1800's) won the war and have spread God's Word around the world, Rome has backed off of its previously public position. Yet the Vatican has not changed. Papal Rome's opposition to pure Bible truth remains to this day. Note these historical statements:

At the Council of Toulouse (1229 A.D), papal church leaders ruled: "We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament ... We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular." "'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out." Pope Gregory IX, Council Tolosanum, 1229 A.D.

The Roman Catholic Council of Tarragona also ruled that: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned." D. Lortsch, Histoire de la Bible en France, 1910, p. 14.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people, D.R.) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good..." Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274.

J.A. Wylie, an authority on Romanism in the Reformation era, dedicated two chapters of his book The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects (London: Hamilton Adams, 1888) to Rome's attitude toward the Bible. Wylie states: "The Latin Vulgate is the authorized standard in the Church of Rome, and that to the disparagement of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. These are omitted in the decree [by the Council of Trent], and a translation is substituted. All Protestant translations, such as our authorized English version, Luther's translation, &c. are prohibited" The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects, p. 181.

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced Bible Societies and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. This Pope declared, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit."

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed: "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. In January 1850, he also condemned Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Pope Leo XIII declared, "As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused..." Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460506 Jul 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
An apple is a fruit....an orange is a fruit....and Oxbow is a nut.
lol
Juvenile....but cute
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460507 Jul 9, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Papal Rome against the Bible
by Steve Wohlberg
Yawn...The neverending unceasing of Protestant rubbish posted is beyond conceivable for people with an ounce of integrity or knowledge.

This is the typical of the misunderstanding and false charges that protestants lay against the Catholic Church. I thought it worth setting the record straight.

There are three charges here:

1. The Catholic Church forbade commoners to read the Bible

2. The Catholic Church forbade commoners to own Bibles

3. The Catholic Church forced people to hear the Bible in a language they did not understand.

None of these are true in the general sense. The first two have limited truth, but those limitations are very important. The Catholic Church forbade people to read corrupt Bibles produced by Protestants just as today we might discourage (or even forbid if we could) ordinary Christians from reading the New World Translation. I know one Catholic speaker who said that when he is in a second hand book shop he buys up these JW corrupt translations and burns them so they will not fall into others hands. The Church values scripture and does not want to see it corrupted.

The early Church used the Greek LXX Old Testament and the NT was written Greek anyway. So those that could read, read it in Greek, which was the lingua franca of the day. Later translations were also made into Latin. At the end of the fourth century Jerome, tri-lingual in Greek, Latin and Hebrew made an updated Latin translation using Hebrew and Greek as well as earlier Latin texts. This was completed around 405 AD. However in 406 the barbarian hoards crossed the Rhine and swept into Gaul and Spain, and three years later Italy was attacked and in 410 Rome itself was sacked by Alaric of the Visigoths. Europe descended into barbarism. Learning was kept alive by the Church and Latin was the language of those that could read or write, and not many could.

As the Church expanded translations were made into local languages. For example at the beginning of the eighth century the Venerable Bede, living in his monastery in Jarrow in North East England, translated the Bible (or at least some of it) into Anglo-Saxon. Some say the whole Bible, but according to his scribe, the Deacon Cuthbert, he just completed translating John’s gospel before he died. I doubt he left that until last.

Saints Cyril and Methodius converted the Moravians in the 9th century and created the forerunner of the Cyrillic alphabet to translate the Bible into the local language.

Even earlier, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,“In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian.”

Returning to English here are a couple of relevant quotes from "Where We Got the Bible" by Father Henry G. Graham, chapter 11 which is entitled "Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff"

Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460508 Jul 9, 2013
“....After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.....”

“Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540:'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.'”

The two biggest problems for the common man in owning and reading the Bible was that:

1)he couldn’t read
2)he couldn’t afford a Bible.

During Bede’s life the Abbot of Bede’s monastery commissioned the monks to produce three complete Bibles. Each Bible used the hides from 1,030 calves to provide the vellum with nine scribes working on each Bible. When complete one Bible weighed 75 pounds and with its protective box would have taken two men to carry it. Not exactly the thing to slip into your back pocket!

In the 16th century the English College in Rheims set out to produce a new English translation of the Bible. The New Testament was published in 1582. The first part of the Old Testament was published in 1609 and the second in 1610 – a year before the KJV was published.
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460509 Jul 9, 2013
Protestants ban the reading of the Bible

Interestingly Protestants did officially ban the reading of the Bible.

“1543 was to bring its own catastrophic set-back for the cause of reform, the notorious Act, passed on 10th May, "for the advancement of true religion"... Severe penalties were therefore imposed on those who had or kept any books containing doctrines contrary to those authorised since 1540. The Act targeted unauthorised versions of the scriptures, in particular Tyndale's New Testament, and it forbade altogether the reading of scripture in private by "women… artificers, prentices, journeymen, serving men of the degrees of yeomen or under, husbandmen or labourers.", though noble and gentlewomen might read the Bible in private. Persistent clerical offenders against this Act might be burned, laymen were subject to forfeiture of goods and perpetual imprisonment.”
(Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars pp432-433)

Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460510 Jul 9, 2013
However I will go though your quotes. As you have just cut and pasted these from various anti-catholic sites I’m sure you won’t mind if some of my answers are just cut and paste answer too.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books."
- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

A Catholic reply:
“This council was called to deal with the Albigensian/Manichean heresy that was running amok in southern France. The texts it was referring to were doctored versions of the Bible which the Albigensian/Manichean created in order to support their heretical teachings. So no, this council did no forbid the reading and study of authentic copies of the Bible.”

=]No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned..."
A Catholic reply:
“There was no Council of Tarragona in 1234. There was a provincial council in 1242 to deal with the details of the Inquisition. Presuming the author simply got the year wrong, I do know the history of this area and time in a general way. Muslim Moors, who had recently been ejected from this region, had produced doctored versions of the Bible, much like the Albgensians had done in France. This was done to support the view that it was Ishmael, not Issac, who Abraham blessed, that Jesus was not crucified and that another even greater prophet would follow Jesus. Many many copies of these false scriptures had been spread throughout the land during the Moorish occupation of Spain.”

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.
Not relevant to the topic (as well as a quote from a council that didn’t exist). However it’s worth pointing out that in England during the persecution of Catholics, any house in which a Catholic Priest was found was burned to the ground, whether people weres till in it or not..

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal”(J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines”(Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).
This is typical of the sort of polemic pretending to be scholarship that Catholics have to put up with and that protestants love to quote from.

The book Illustrations of Popery is subtitled The Mystery of Iniquity Unveiled in it Damnable Heresies, Lying Wonder, and Strong Delusions With the Sanguinary Persecutions of the “Woman Drunken With the Blood Of The Saints” How reliable do you think any quotes from such a source is?

However, let us suppose that Pope Innocent III did indeed publish this. What does that show? Does it show that translation of the bible was forbidden? No, it doesn’t. It says that translations should not be made without the authority of their superiors. The Church was concerned about poor translations being produced that corrupted the text. It would want to ensure that translations were made by competent people.

Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460511 Jul 9, 2013
Moreover according to Illustrations of Popery this was in a Papal Bull. These were letters or decrees sent to specific people or groups of people concerning specific circumstances. They are not general edicts.
Wikipedia has a list of Papal Bulls and Pope Innocent III did not issue one in 1215 so J.P. Callender may have made it up or confused it with something else.

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS”(M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.
Firstly it wasn’t the Catholic Church which made this prohibition but the King and Queen.

Secondly I would question the veracity of this quote. The problem with these sort of quotes is that no source is given and it is impossible to check their accuracy.
Note this from the Catholic Encyclopedia under Spanish Translations
“A complete version in the vernacular, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris, was made by Nicholas de Nardò, O.P., in 1472. The first printed Bible (Venice, 1471) was due to Nicholas Malermi, O. Camald. A revision of this, with notes, rubrics, and résumés largely after the Biblical commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra, was made by Marine de Veneto, O.P.(Venice, 1477).” So there were already Spanish translations available.
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460512 Jul 9, 2013
It’s also worth noting that around the same time Cardinal Ximenes was concerned about a lack of scripture scholarship and founded the University of Alcala. He also had a team of specialists produce, under his personal supervision, the first polyglot Bible with the texts in Latin, Greek and Hebrew side by side.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand:“WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial”(John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible:“This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue”(Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45).
The point you embolden clearly says that no-one shall translate “BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY”. Again the Church was concerned about the quality of the translations. As I showed in my OP there were numerous translations into the vernacular already.

6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church.“THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year”(Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages).
Again to prevent corrupt translations of the Bible. Not stopping translations. The Church did not want corrupt translations produced.

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor.
Restrictions were on on corrupt translations such as Luther’s where he actually inserted the word “alone” into the sacred text to support his “faith alone” doctrine.

Council of Trent - http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

I challenge you to show me where the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent “forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor”
http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showthread....
Oxbow

Westlake, LA

#460513 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah's ark did not hold water...It sat upon the water...
Isaiah is known as the Messianic Prophet He wrote
Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and
his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Your theory just sank...
Add also:
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

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 If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 5 min -Stray Dog 6,406
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 9 min Just Think 836
Should I marry this ugly blonde German girl or ... 14 min Felix loves Alison 16
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min ChristineM 863,982
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Justise_League 1,940
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 1 hr sangili karuppan 1,838
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr sangili karuppan 7,475
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr WasteWater 272,403
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,892
More from around the web