Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 627804 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

#460806 Jul 10, 2013
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!"
<quoted text>
If I ever get the itch to be a mass murderer or sodomize little boys I will become Roman Catholic.
Protestants also molest children.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

WORCESTER, MA. A former pastor Andrew J. Bierkan, 54, at the First Congregational Church of Sutton who now heads a church in Ohio has been indicted here on charges of unnatural rape of a child and posing a child in a state of nudity. He is now pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte.(Worcester Telegram & Gazette, August 13, 2003)
Ex-Sutton pastor charged with rape of girl from church

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460807 Jul 10, 2013
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>So what? Spiritual beings are often compared to or called trees in the scriptures. In the following verse God compares Himself to a great fir tree. Why? Because fir trees are ever green or ever living hense God is ever living.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjva/hosea/14-...
No wonder that God would compare Himself to the great fir tree that is ever green or ever living.
:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460808 Jul 10, 2013
Milpitas, CA. A secretary to a LDS Bishop has admitted to sexually molesting four children, and will be sentenced to 14 years in prison. Craig Allen Harward, 54, pleaded guilty Monday to three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on children under the age of 14, and no contest to a fourth count of the same charge, Four of the case with the most convincing evidence involved four boys -- two of whom were 10, one 11 and another 13 years old at the time they were molested.(SAan Fransisco Chronicle, March 12, 2003)
Child molester pleads guilty

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460809 Jul 10, 2013
Visalia, CA -- A 38-year-old Visalia man who was a leader in a local Jehovah's Witness congregation may face up to 16 years in prison on charges of sexually molesting a 12-year-old congregation member. Louis Anguiano served until last year as an elder at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses at 5310 Caldwell Ave. He is accused of continuous sexual abuse, over a two-year period, of a girl who attended the same congregation.(The Fresno Bee, January 30, 2003)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460810 Jul 10, 2013
SUMTER, S.C.- A former youth pastor here has been charged with forcing a 12-year-old girl to perform oral sex in a hospital bathroom, police say. Troy Glenn Clark, 34, of Lexington, N.C., has been charged with criminal sexual conduct with a minor.(The State, Dec. 12, 2002)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460811 Jul 10, 2013
Philadelphia, PA. In the late 80s, Harbaugh attended St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Fleetwood, Berks County. Harbaugh was 15 years old when she attracted the attention of the youth minister, Valerie Stoop, who was 27 at the time. Harbaugh says Stoops' alleged abuse began with holding hands, progressed to kissing and then fondling. (WPVI Philadelphia, Oct 4, 2002)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460812 Jul 10, 2013
ST. PAUL, Minn. Two Minnesota women who say they were sexually abused by a Jehovah's Witness filed a lawsuit Tuesday against him, their congregation and the church's parent organization in New York. (July 2, 2002, St. Paul Pioneer Press)

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#460813 Jul 10, 2013
who="waaasssuuup"
i'm pretty sure tha we're on the same page KayMarie, but i would go a step further to say that even man's attmepts at doing good/God's will, apart from being born-again of the Spirit of God, are as filthy rags as far as pleasing God is concerned.
apart from God (i.e., His Spirit working in us) we can do nothing good/of eternal consequence:-)
"accept The Lord builds the house, those that labor labor in vain"

**********

True...man's efforts without God are all adulterated with pride and selfishness.

KM

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460814 Jul 10, 2013
I could go on and on and on with molestations that occurred in various Protestant churches, but you get the idea. It happens in all religious institutions and homes all over the world.

Humans are mortal animals and there's no getting around that issue.
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#460815 Jul 10, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
And my point was my bible and yours say the same thing ..minus the apocryphal books .
The CC kept the Mass,and TH e it books in Latin..
Thank God for the printing press..
But people and books were,destroyed for having bibles in the middle ages...your church wanted priests to dispense knowledge .
And while the gospels ..the rest are in the mass ..in decades past..
Catholics. Studied catechism
You all have bible study now..
I was there Catholic Church and school
Baltimore Catechism .much teaching. But no bibles
Now you are just being willfully ignorant and a liar. That is stupidity at it's finest. You clearly did not read what was posted and refutation of the lies. You rather relished in it. The facts are that bibles were in other languages clearly already stated. Bibles were not forbidden in vernacular languages. Bibles were not at any time forbidden to the laity. Faulty translations were. Again grab a book of Moorman or perhaps you can have one with Preston commentary like Mary was a crap mother and just a surrogate body and Jesus called her woman because he didnt respect her. lol You are making a blanket statement that people with bibles were destroyed apparently if any language other than latin and you are pulling that out of your hiney. Learn some history please and not from rubbish that was posted from anti-catholic hate sites with councils that never existed. lol Further did you read the ban from issued by Protestants? Its historical fact.

A Catholic ivented the Printing press btw. It truly is a wonder how anyone became a Christian before the kjv and no not all bibles are the same. There are KJV onlyists and there are protestors of the New KJV. Perhaps you approve the JW bible reworded to fit the doctrine. The Mass was in Latin and it was understood by everyone anywhere in the world, but if you wish to promote that the church banned the bible from all laity or other languages that is a lie. You were the one saying that all you need is John. Fine then you contend with the bible that not all scripture is profitable. Furthermore the only reason you know John is viable is because the Catholic Church said so. You accept the authority of the church that said it is authentic and then you accept your interpretations of the books you choose. Why not any of the gnosis gospels? Maybe you could throw out James too since its no biggie. Luther certainly hated James along with Jude and what would protestants ever do without revelation and your endless spins?

Bottom line is you approved of false witness and are promoting it. Does that give you the warm fuzzies?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#460816 Jul 10, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just being willfully ignorant and a liar. That is stupidity at it's finest. You clearly did not read what was posted and refutation of the lies. You rather relished in it. The facts are that bibles were in other languages clearly already stated. Bibles were not forbidden in vernacular languages. Bibles were not at any time forbidden to the laity. Faulty translations were. Again grab a book of Moorman or perhaps you can have one with Preston commentary like Mary was a crap mother and just a surrogate body and Jesus called her woman because he didnt respect her. lol You are making a blanket statement that people with bibles were destroyed apparently if any language other than latin and you are pulling that out of your hiney. Learn some history please and not from rubbish that was posted from anti-catholic hate sites with councils that never existed. lol Further did you read the ban from issued by Protestants? Its historical fact.
A Catholic ivented the Printing press btw. It truly is a wonder how anyone became a Christian before the kjv and no not all bibles are the same. There are KJV onlyists and there are protestors of the New KJV. Perhaps you approve the JW bible reworded to fit the doctrine. The Mass was in Latin and it was understood by everyone anywhere in the world, but if you wish to promote that the church banned the bible from all laity or other languages that is a lie. You were the one saying that all you need is John. Fine then you contend with the bible that not all scripture is profitable. Furthermore the only reason you know John is viable is because the Catholic Church said so. You accept the authority of the church that said it is authentic and then you accept your interpretations of the books you choose. Why not any of the gnosis gospels? Maybe you could throw out James too since its no biggie. Luther certainly hated James along with Jude and what would protestants ever do without revelation and your endless spins?
Bottom line is you approved of false witness and are promoting it. Does that give you the warm fuzzies?
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ banned.htm
truth

Perth, Australia

#460817 Jul 10, 2013
not worthy expression from man
always woman wrong..why is like that..poor mans phobics story who is better who is not..

Are you for sure Jesus not say man you are not better then woman?

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#460818 Jul 10, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just being willfully ignorant and a liar. That is stupidity at it's finest. You clearly did not read what was posted and refutation of the lies. You rather relished in it. The facts are that bibles were in other languages clearly already stated. Bibles were not forbidden in vernacular languages. Bibles were not at any time forbidden to the laity. Faulty translations were. Again grab a book of Moorman or perhaps you can have one with Preston commentary like Mary was a crap mother and just a surrogate body and Jesus called her woman because he didnt respect her. lol You are making a blanket statement that people with bibles were destroyed apparently if any language other than latin and you are pulling that out of your hiney. Learn some history please and not from rubbish that was posted from anti-catholic hate sites with councils that never existed. lol Further did you read the ban from issued by Protestants? Its historical fact.
A Catholic ivented the Printing press btw. It truly is a wonder how anyone became a Christian before the kjv and no not all bibles are the same. There are KJV onlyists and there are protestors of the New KJV. Perhaps you approve the JW bible reworded to fit the doctrine. The Mass was in Latin and it was understood by everyone anywhere in the world, but if you wish to promote that the church banned the bible from all laity or other languages that is a lie. You were the one saying that all you need is John. Fine then you contend with the bible that not all scripture is profitable. Furthermore the only reason you know John is viable is because the Catholic Church said so. You accept the authority of the church that said it is authentic and then you accept your interpretations of the books you choose. Why not any of the gnosis gospels? Maybe you could throw out James too since its no biggie. Luther certainly hated James along with Jude and what would protestants ever do without revelation and your endless spins?
Bottom line is you approved of false witness and are promoting it. Does that give you the warm fuzzies?
Actually way back when, the Roman Catholic Church did indeed forbid the common man to own the Bible so that they could read it for themselves. They wanted the RCC leaders to be the only ones to read the Bible and they would in turn tell the common man what the Bible said.

It didn't exactly go over well with the RCC when King James had the Bible translated into Englaih so that the common man could read it for themselves.
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460819 Jul 10, 2013
"The Council of Toulouse did ban the possession of vernacular Bibles for the laity without a license; not because the Church wished to discourage the authentic study of Scripture, but because the Bible was used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. In the Middle Ages, Bibles contained glosses, either in between verses or in the margins. These glosses served to guide the reader's interpretation of the text. A decently translated Bible could contain glosses which might lead the reader to reject the Church. Or the translation of the Bible could be perverted to support a heretical doctrine. For these reasons, some very poor and incorrectly translated bibles were burned.

The uncritical anti-Catholic also assumes that because there were relatively few bibles, knowledge of Scripture was limited. That was hardly the case. Catholics transmitted biblical knowledge in other forms. There were books which paraphrased stories in the Bible as is done today in children's books. The visual arts abounded in Scriptural themes. Stained-glass windows were the poor man's Bible. There were Miracle plays, which were the forerunners of modern Western theatre, as well as poems recounting Bible stories. Even the illiterate had access to the Bible through their families. Only a minority of people were literate during the Middle Ages, but sometimes one person in the family could read (often a woman) and the Bible, being the most widely-owned book in the Middle Ages, was read aloud.

The assumption driving this myth of bible-banning is that the Church, during the Middle Ages, was a big bad oppressor who wanted her flock to be ignorant so that it wouldn't challenge her power and her doctrines.

So the charge that the Church was against knowledge of Scripture is entirely unfounded. It's true that in some periods and some places vernacular versions of the Bible were rare or non-existent, but that's not the same thing as saying that the Church did not want the laity to read the Bible."
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460820 Jul 10, 2013
Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry G. Graham

Catholicism and Fundamentalism
by Karl Keating

10. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse in A.D. 1229 a)[The] Index was established in 1543, so a council held in 1229 hardly could have listed a book on it...The council held in Toulouse dealt with the Albigensian heresy, a variety of Manichaeanism, which maintained that marriage is evil because the flesh is evil...In order to promulgate their views, the Albigensians used vernacular versions of the Bible to “substantiate” their theories...[and they] were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was ended.(C&F p.45)

The Bible was one of the very first books to be translated into English. Books that were translated later than the Bible include works such as Homer's Iliad, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, the Odes of Horace, the Koran, and the Tragedies of Euripedes (see Paul Stenhouse, Catholic Answers to "Bible" Christians, pp. 40-41).

The Catholic Church and the Bible by Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas

Albigenses - Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

The Glory of Christendom by Warren Carroll

Protestant writers:

Roman Catholicism has a high regard for Scripture as a source of knowledge ... Indeed, official Roman Catholic statements concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture would satisfy the most rigorous Protestant fundamentalist.

{Robert McAfee Brown, The Spirit of Protestantism, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, pp. 172-173}

There was never a time in the history of the western Church during the 'Dark' or 'Middle' Ages when the Scriptures were officially demoted. On the contrary, they were considered infallible and inerrant, and were held in the highest honour.

{Peter Toon, Protestants and Catholics, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983, p. 39}

After quoting 19 eminent Church Fathers to the effect that Scripture is infallible and held in the highest regard (bolstering his own thesis in this book), Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today and well-known evangelical scholar, has this to say about the Catholic reverence for Scripture:

The view expressed by Augustine was the view the Roman Catholic Church believed, taught, and propagated through the centuries ... It can be said that the Roman church for more than a thousand years accepted the doctrine of infallibility of all Scripture ... The church has always (via Fathers, theologians, and popes) taught biblical inerrancy ... The Roman church held to a view of Scripture that was no different from that held by the Reformers.

{The Battle For the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976, pp. 54-56}
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460821 Jul 10, 2013
Item: "Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia ...[A.D.] 1229."

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/catholic-inven...

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#460822 Jul 10, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
"The Council of Toulouse did ban the possession of vernacular Bibles for the laity without a license; not because the Church wished to discourage the authentic study of Scripture, but because the Bible was used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. In the Middle Ages, Bibles contained glosses, either in between verses or in the margins. These glosses served to guide the reader's interpretation of the text. A decently translated Bible could contain glosses which might lead the reader to reject the Church. Or the translation of the Bible could be perverted to support a heretical doctrine. For these reasons, some very poor and incorrectly translated bibles were burned.
The uncritical anti-Catholic also assumes that because there were relatively few bibles, knowledge of Scripture was limited. That was hardly the case. Catholics transmitted biblical knowledge in other forms. There were books which paraphrased stories in the Bible as is done today in children's books. The visual arts abounded in Scriptural themes. Stained-glass windows were the poor man's Bible. There were Miracle plays, which were the forerunners of modern Western theatre, as well as poems recounting Bible stories. Even the illiterate had access to the Bible through their families. Only a minority of people were literate during the Middle Ages, but sometimes one person in the family could read (often a woman) and the Bible, being the most widely-owned book in the Middle Ages, was read aloud.
The assumption driving this myth of bible-banning is that the Church, during the Middle Ages, was a big bad oppressor who wanted her flock to be ignorant so that it wouldn't challenge her power and her doctrines.
So the charge that the Church was against knowledge of Scripture is entirely unfounded. It's true that in some periods and some places vernacular versions of the Bible were rare or non-existent, but that's not the same thing as saying that the Church did not want the laity to read the Bible."
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_...
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#460823 Jul 10, 2013
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually way back when, the Roman Catholic Church did indeed forbid the common man to own the Bible so that they could read it for themselves. They wanted the RCC leaders to be the only ones to read the Bible and they would in turn tell the common man what the Bible said.
It didn't exactly go over well with the RCC when King James had the Bible translated into Englaih so that the common man could read it for themselves.
Oh...I guess thats why the Catholic bible was published in English before the Queen James. lol

“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)
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460824 Jul 10, 2013
MISCONCEPTION REGARDING
CATHOLICS BEING FORBIDDEN
FROM READING THE HOLY BIBLE.

There is a myth circulating in the Protestant circle that, now and/or in the past, Catholics were forbidden from reading the Holy Bible.

This myth opposes the centuries old practice of promoting the Catholic Bible:

1. The first Bible was compiled by scholars of the Catholic Church during the second and third century. It was approved by the Catholic Councils of Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.

2. The first Bible to be printed was a Catholic Bible under the auspices of the Catholic Church. It was printed by the CATHOLIC inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg.
http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics...
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460825 Jul 10, 2013
The origin of the myth

1. In the past, most Holy Bibles owned by the Catholic Church were locked away in a safe place. This was to prevent them from being stolen. Many of these Holy Bibles were hand written, they being incredibly valuable due to their scarcity.

2. It is alleged that the Church forbade Catholics from reading the Holy Bible by placing it on the index of Forbidden Books. The Bibles placed on the Index of Forbidden Books were Protestant Bibles that lacked 7 books and/or badly translated versions of the Bible.

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) 7 min Catcher1 951,476
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 min Lyndi 180,075
Looking for a rat terrier dog 9 min Kimmons 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min LAWEST100 615,694
Gay sex in raigarh (Jun '15) 21 min rocks 337
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 33 min Earthling 14,722
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 45 min RiccardoFire 17,859
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Neville Thompson 278,492
More from around the web