Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 687223 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.

June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472618 Aug 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<I wonder why it is not required to believe in all of Jesus
DOH!
Do YOU require it?

:)
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#472619 Aug 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow is an idiot. Everyone here knows that. He doesn't listen to any Christian here so it's pointless to admonish him.
You on the other hand used your first post here today to defend his position regarding the Blessed Virgin. In my opinion that makes you questionable aw well.
Give a break...do you want a hug??

Go back to see posts Tony. I have replied to him but not in a long long time. Because unlike you, I ignore him.

He said filthy things to I believe Regina(I could be wrong) but it was a female and I called him on it. So save your speech.

btw...show me where I defended his post.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472620 Aug 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
He dreamed the whole happening.
Do you always place credibility in dreams and visions?
How?
Why?
Do YOU? And if not, how do you know that Jesus existed, or if he existed what he believed?

Could it be that you have put all your faith in the words written by the Gnostics, who by the way never agreed with each other on the meanings of words???

:)
Clay

Garden City, MI

#472621 Aug 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
You are supposed to be Catholic.
Please state where "God" has specifically stated which books are inspired and which are not.
Honesty Clay, that is what I am looking for.
God doesn't say which Books are inspired. He left it up to Chuck and the born again movement to determine the canon of scripture. They said the first 1600 yrs of Christianity had the incorrect amount of Books and interpretations, so they ripped out 7 and clarified the meanings of the other 66. Thanks Chuck! Lol

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472622 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Do YOU require it?
:)
Yes, if one is required to "believe in Jesus".

But I am just some guy in ABQ. What does it matter if someone doesn't listen to what I have to say?

It doesn't.

Why?
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472623 Aug 23, 2013
All theologians were good at the game of guessing. So WHAT? Anyone can guess, but to claim to know truth is another matter altogether.

And I suggest they never had female "leaders" as stated below. Women were not perceived by any of the Christians OR Jews in that era as anything other than subservient possessions of men.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>

Those now known as Gnostics (not named that until later in history) were not a church but more what we might call a theological perspective. They did have a few leaders, both male and female, and had various and diverse theologies. They did have some unusual beliefs.

http://gnosticschristians.com/page2.html

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472624 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Do YOU? And if not, how do you know that Jesus existed, or if he existed what he believed?
Could it be that you have put all your faith in the words written by the Gnostics, who by the way never agreed with each other on the meanings of words???
:)
You can ask all year long June - and if you are paying attention, your questions are off-topic.

If you have questions concerning me and my beliefs, why don't you start your own forum and take it out of this one.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#472625 Aug 23, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Give a break...do you want a hug??
Go back to see posts Tony. I have replied to him but not in a long long time. Because unlike you, I ignore him.
He said filthy things to I believe Regina(I could be wrong) but it was a female and I called him on it. So save your speech.
btw...show me where I defended his post.
Oxbow made the comment today about the Blessed Virgin. Clay confronted him. You posted a comment to Clay insisting she DID have a lot of other children. It appeared you were defending him. Even preston posted to you about it. Save your phony indignation.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472626 Aug 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
You are supposed to be Catholic.
Please state where "God" has specifically stated which books are inspired and which are not.
Honesty Clay, that is what I am looking for.
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
God doesn't say which Books are inspired. He left it up to Chuck and the born again movement to determine the canon of scripture. They said the first 1600 yrs of Christianity had the incorrect amount of Books and interpretations, so they ripped out 7 and clarified the meanings of the other 66. Thanks Chuck! Lol
You are diverting, Clay.

I already know "Chuck" doesn't have an answer, and yours is no better than anything "Chuck" could dream up.

But I didn't ask "Chuck", now did I - I asked you.

But you chose to not answer and divert from the request.

Typical Catholic.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472627 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
All theologians were good at the game of guessing. So WHAT? Anyone can guess, but to claim to know truth is another matter altogether.
And I suggest they never had female "leaders" as stated below. Women were not perceived by any of the Christians OR Jews in that era as anything other than subservient possessions of men.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Those now known as Gnostics (not named that until later in history) were not a church but more what we might call a theological perspective. They did have a few leaders, both male and female, and had various and diverse theologies. They did have some unusual beliefs.
http://gnosticschristians.com/page2.html
"Certainly, the Gnostics had beliefs but their's were open to change and not final answers."
- I can see you didn't post this important statement within the article, huh?

We will all find out the "truth" [final answers]- when we die.

I wonder why you find this beleif to be so appalling to accept.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472628 Aug 23, 2013
Christians stole the land from the Natives and then had the audacity to state that the Natives weren't citizens in their own country.

THAT is the height of arrogance.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

World History Timelines
Din Timelines

1924

June
15 - Native Americans are proclaimed US citizens.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472629 Aug 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
"Certainly, the Gnostics had beliefs but their's were open to change and not final answers."
- I can see you didn't post this important statement within the article, huh?
We will all find out the "truth" [final answers]- when we die.
I wonder why you find this beleif to be so appalling to accept.
Which proves that your religion is all based on theory ... so why are you so intend on getting other people to follow YOUR theories???

Are you CRAZY?
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472630 Aug 23, 2013
intent
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#472631 Aug 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow made the comment today about the Blessed Virgin. Clay confronted him. You posted a comment to Clay insisting she DID have a lot of other children. It appeared you were defending him. Even preston posted to you about it. Save your phony indignation.
Now you say it appeared I defended him because you have now post that I did indeed defend him. Now it's "appeared" I was defending him. You're confused as your twin.

Hey...lets go out back and toss the ball and talk about little buddy.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Vancouver, Canada

#472632 Aug 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
You can ask all year long June - and if you are paying attention, your questions are off-topic.
If you have questions concerning me and my beliefs, why don't you start your own forum and take it out of this one.
You and your Gnosticism are way to much fun for me to go elsewhere.

Is this thread about Gnosticism, or Catholicism??? I don't see anything about Gnosticism in the heading ... "Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican"

You silly pooh!

:)

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472633 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
All theologians were good at the game of guessing. So WHAT? Anyone can guess, but to claim to know truth is another matter altogether.
And I suggest they never had female "leaders" as stated below. Women were not perceived by any of the Christians OR Jews in that era as anything other than subservient possessions of men.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Those now known as Gnostics (not named that until later in history) were not a church but more what we might call a theological perspective. They did have a few leaders, both male and female, and had various and diverse theologies. They did have some unusual beliefs.
http://gnosticschristians.com/page2.html
Just to keep you honest with your posts....if you had included this portion of the article, it actually challenges alot of what you have said....

"Unfortunately, the Bishops and many in history depicted Gnosticism falsely, as believing another set of doctrines, as a secretive sect, and as not believing in the "real" world. From their writings, however, we know they had a style of faith that could have made Christianity more a spiritual journey, less judgmental and exclusive, and much more positive as one relates to the world and Christ."
http://gnosticschristians.com/page2.html

>>>less judgmental and exclusive, and much more positive as one relates to the world and Christ<<

Things that many so-called "Christians" and wanna be Athiests, can't seem to come to terms with, because it places the burden upon themselves, and they can't handle having to answer to themselves, instead of another.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472634 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Which proves that your religion is all based on theory ... so why are you so intend on getting other people to follow YOUR theories???
Are you CRAZY?
All religions are based in conjecture and theories.

Okay - I guess I'm crazy - just liket he rest of the world.

So. At least I'm not crazy enough to stay with it for 70+ years.

June - I just want to change the world, and haven't one ability to do so, EXCEPT Topix to help me.

So there!

Nana-nana-boo-boo!

But for some reason, you think you have to worry about me - huh?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472635 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
You can choose to keep believing you receive divine power from words in a book ... or you can choose to close the cover of that book and never place faith and trust in the words of that book again.
June VanDerMark
August 23, 2013
Maybe you should have given credit to Geddy Lee as well.....

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will."
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rush/freewill_20...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#472636 Aug 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your Gnosticism are way to much fun for me to go elsewhere.
Is this thread about Gnosticism, or Catholicism??? I don't see anything about Gnosticism in the heading ... "Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican"
You silly pooh!
:)
You are the only one trying to make it part of the forum, silly.

*sighs*
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#472637 Aug 23, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you say it appeared I defended him because you have now post that I did indeed defend him. Now it's "appeared" I was defending him. You're confused as your twin.
Hey...lets go out back and toss the ball and talk about little buddy.
There wasn't one word to Clay about Oxbow's obnoxious post when you jumped in and defended his position on the Virgin Mary. That may have been the appropriate time to voice your opposition to his language, if you in fact did oppose it. It's ok chuck, we know how you feel about her, no need for the phoniness.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr Mnbvc 30,865
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Wardaddy99 987,315
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Berzerkers 286,543
Anthony Bragg 2 hr Eyes open Smh 29
SEALS vs. "Green Berets"...who would win? (Jan '08) 2 hr USSF 184
I LOVE my new LG V20 smartphone!!! 6 hr Doctor REALITY 5
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Seentheotherside 619,790
More from around the web