Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665126 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: Dec 06

Location hidden

#502942 Dec 29, 2013
Gods R Delusions but Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple. I make my conclusions based on what you write.
But when you fail to stand by your own words, you are more than "just another fool."
As for your comment about other Christians who have "faith without reason," once again you place yourself at a higher spiritual place than others.
You simply can not stop being judgmental.
If you were indeed a person of BOTH reason and faith (as you seem to imply), then your reason would tell you that your faith is not fact, and certainly not something on which to judge others.
Self-righteousness is the bane of all religion.
Gods R Delusions

Peace

I agree with all of what you write.

Yet there is a tension or a border between people of faith, and those of faith and reason. I agree that I struggle with being judgmental. If someone does not, then I suppose that person is perfect.

Blind faith, and informed faith produce different results in a persons life. At some point if a person does not seek being informed, they are led into darkness and confusion. And to seek, requires a certain discipline and obedience.

Perhaps also, the bane of religion is to be accustomed to someone, and their responses. So with respect to June, I shall in the future not consider them....As I have a tendency to respond to her as a child continually yelling, "Wolf". Yet to ignore her is more aligned with malice. I will have to give that some thought.

I will take your advice and be more humble, seek humility, and praise it.

Peace
marge

Leesburg, GA

#502943 Dec 29, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is your food?? Where does Jesus say to 'take this Bible and eat it, for this is my body"?
Why don't you stop and consider where the Bible came from. Its not one book, its a collection of books. It didn't come with a list, a group had to sit down and decide which books to include; it didn't come with chapters and verses, somebody broke it down with emphasis on certain passages they deemed important. It didn't come in a complete, printed and highlighted book. Somebody had to copy it while an earthly authority made sure it was done properly.
The Bible wasn't simply created. It was DEVELOPED within the Holy Catholic Church- the only Church started by Jesus Christ. Biblical facts destroy Protestant non catholic fundamentals. I see you fighting feverishly trying to sustain a lie called 'bible only Christianity'. That title itself doesn't even make sense. Itching ears Preston. Many people in the last 200 yrs had itching ears.
Matt 4:4
But he answered,“It is written,‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#502944 Dec 29, 2013
In 326, upon the official formation of the new Roman Imperial religion of Christianity, Emperor Constantine I ordered a new official motto and signature for the government of the Roman Empire- I·N·R·I which means ILEX·NOVUM·ROMANUM·IMPERIUM --literally "One Law (is) New Name (for) Roman Empire" --simply Holly (Holy) New Roman Empire.

The official and motto was ordered to replace the previous motto of S·P·Q·R (which in Latin meant SENATUS POPULUS QUO REGNUM or “(The) Senate (of the) People Through Which (is) Rule”) on all official legion standards, buildings, documents and monuments. The order was largely ignore by the people in "Old" Rome and North Africa. The official standard of I·N·R·I is also where the saying "New Rome" originates to distinguish Constantinople from Rome.

The word Ilex which is an ancient Latin word for Holly (from which the word Holy is derived) itself is a construct of two Latin words i = One and lex = Law--hence Ilex also means "One Law" and "Primary Law" as well as Holly.

Novum is latin for New Name. Romanum Imperium is Latin for Roman Empire.

However the meaning of I·N·R·I was deliberately distorted by Roman Cult historians in the 16th Century to read the absurd (and historically impossible) phrase IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM or "Jesus of Nazareth- King of the Jews"--the word Jew not created until the 16th Century. This elaborate fraud was deliberately created at the same time the Roman Cult attempted to recreate the "Holy Roman Empire" as SRI (Sacrum Romanum Imperium) in Germany.

Today not one single history book accurately lists the correct title of the Roman Empire reconstituted under Constantine as the "Holy New Roman Empire", nor is there any accurate academic reference to his role as founder of Christianity as the Imperial Religion.

The link to I·N·R·I and the official religion of Christianity

The official imperial motto I·N·R·I has a direct link to the creation of the official religion of the "New" Roman Empire being Christianity in 326.

As british born Constantine (Custennyn/ Custennin) was both a king of the Celt tribe of Drumonii as well as a descendent of the Cuilliaéan, he would have been well aware of his famous ancestor and Holly King Hesus (incorrectly spelt Jesus)--a man who sought to change Sarmatian (Israel) and Yahudi (Judah) Jewish practices by using his birthright as the last true bloodline of Messiah Kings of Yahud (Judah).

While I·N·R·I was listed on its own most commonly, it was also incorporated onto standards using the Chi-Rho Cross.

End of the Holly New Roman Empire

The official end of the Holly New Roman Empire is most accurately dated to 1096 and the fall of Constantinople at the hands of the massive militia army of AntiPope Urban II masquerading as "Peter the Hermit". While the priests managed to escape to the courts of the Jewish Sarmatian Kings of Rus (Russia), the Imperial Archives were destroyed with many books seized and later completely altered.

While both Emperors and clergy are listed after this date, both their tenure and policies were subject to the whims of the Roman Cult who from this date onward held crucial instruments of power in relation to the formation and history of Christianity.

The Fraudulent "Holy Roman Empire" of Germany

Contrary to most history books that falsely claim Charlemagne and his descendents first incorporated the title "Holy Roman Empire" into their reign, the title "Holy Roman Empire" did not appear until the 16th Century when it was known in German as Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation and in Latin in Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ.

The last ruler to claim the title of "Holy Roman Emperor" was Francis II, who abdicated and dissolved the Empire during the Napoleonic Wars in 1806.

It is also sometimes claimed that the title Sacrum Romanum Imperium (SRI) was used earlier. However, no evidence exists for this title being in existence in any reference prior to 1254.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502945 Dec 29, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Matt 4:4
But he answered,“It is written,‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
And you are certain that the words that proceeded from god's mouth through the mouths of favorite theologians and then through you mouth is the one and only truth in the universe ... RIGHT???

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502946 Dec 29, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Did your favorite theologians also preach the one and only truth straight from the one and only god in the universe???

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502947 Dec 29, 2013
Every preacher of religion claims from his/her certainty of knowing answers, to be able to read the mind of god. Yet all the same preachers feign humility by adding the disclaimer that god is beyond all "knowing" ... or ... "Only God knows, blah, blah blah.........."

:)
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#502948 Dec 29, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Matt 4:4
But he answered,“It is written,‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
I'm sorry, but when you and Preston insert your own interpretations, its no longer the word of God.
And you'd be a hypocrite, because you do not live by every word that "proceeds from the mouth of God". You only acknowledge what a few of the Apostles wrote down anyway and you completely ignore what the others verbally taught. To me, this makes you idolaters of the Bible.
Next time use your head before you recklessly shove a bible verse in my face.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502950 Dec 29, 2013
Hand a preacher a supposed "holy book" and then be prepared for the sermonizing that is certain to follow.

Preachers of religion never run out of words, leading victims of the abuse to believe that after all, if it ever again occurs ... silence might indeed be golden.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502951 Dec 29, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but when you and Preston insert your own interpretations, its no longer the word of God.
Every person that reads words inserts his/her own meanings.

How do you reckon that Martin Luther used the same bible when he was a Catholic, as he did when he turned anti-Catholic and started his new religion???

He inserted meaning into the words ... the first time claiming that marriage for monks was evil ... and the second time claiming that marriage for members of the clergy was holy. And he did all that claiming it was based on "God's" will ... NOT HIS OWN WILL!

Words in your bible are simply a mirror of your own thoughts that you reflect back to yourself.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502952 Dec 29, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Next time use your head before you recklessly shove a bible verse in my face.
How do you suppose the Jews that were faithful to Judaism felt, when the church-fathers used words in their new testament to insist that Jesus had turned his back on Judaism to become a Catholic???

Can you relate to their feelings ... or will you even allow your mind to go there???

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502953 Dec 29, 2013
I find it of interest that Martin Luther was not the one to re-write the Catholic bible for the Protestant religion. King James I took it upon himself to authorize the plagiarism.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>

From the book "The History Of Christianity ... The Church from the Reformation to the Present, Volume 2, by Clyde L. Manschreck ... comes the following.

The Millenary Petition, 1603

This petition, supposedly representing a thousand Puritans, was presented to James I on his way to London. He granted a conference the following year, authorized a new version of the scriptures, and made a few concessions, but he insisted on conformity to the Prayer Book, which was only slightly changed.(Gee and Hardy, Documents Illistrative of English Church History. Cf. Fuller, Church History of Britain.)

Meanwhile, a fresh form of Protestant authoritarianism was emerging in the person of John Calvin (1509-1564)

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502954 Dec 29, 2013
The KJV team was told in the first rule of their translation charter to follow the Bishops’ Bible where truth would permit, and they were free to seek out more accurate renderings when they saw a discrepancy. But with 6 translation companies, about 50 contributors, 3 separate work sites, almost 800,000 words, 6 years or so of notes, working in 8 languages, with a little Chaldean and Aramaic, and conducting all correspondence among themselves in Latin, spelling of words may seem to lose a little sense. The focus must have been on giving the meaning of words and on communication and style and tone. Spellings seem to aim at reflecting the erudition of the translators in transmitting the original text through transliteration.

http://unfailingword.com/2012/12/14/investiga...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502955 Dec 29, 2013
To change even one word written by other authors is plagiarism.

The Jews committed plagiarism when they messed with the words from the Jewish polytheists, to in turn start their one-god dogma.

The Catholics committed plagiarism when they messed with the words of the Jew's to create that new testament.

The Protestants committed plagiarism when they messed with the words of the new testament.

The plagiarism never seems to come to an end ,,, and the preachers of the words are all PROUD. Observe this nasty bit of plagiarism.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

The word “homosexual” did not enter the English language until the 19th century. Please note how men added that word to the later editions of the bibles.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>

1 Corinthians 6:9

Douay-Rheims Bible
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

1 Corinthians 6:9

World English Bible
Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#502956 Dec 29, 2013
Each new male-"contributor" of words claimed to be certain that god was speaking though him to others.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>

In the second page of the King James version of the bible the words read as follows......

THE BIBLE

THIS BOOK REVEALS THE MIND OF GOD, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

ITS DOCTRINES ARE HOLY, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

READ IT AND BE WISE, believe it to be safe, and practise it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

etc., etc., etc.
Liam

Chicago, IL

#502957 Dec 29, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you suppose the Jews that were faithful to Judaism felt, when the church-fathers used words in their new testament to insist that Jesus had turned his back on Judaism to become a Catholic???
Can you relate to their feelings ... or will you even allow your mind to go there???
The New Testament to the Church fathers wasn't a Book. It was a Sacrament. The Christian Bible didn't become "the Bible" until the 4th century. Still, it didn't supersede the Eucharist. Fundamental Christians need to face this truth and quit fantasizing that Jesus started a Book for them to interpret His ministry on. He started a Church, like it or not.
Liam

Chicago, IL

#502958 Dec 29, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you suppose the Jews that were faithful to Judaism felt, when the church-fathers used words in their new testament to insist that Jesus had turned his back on Judaism to become a Catholic???
Can you relate to their feelings ... or will you even allow your mind to go there???
Its completely normal that some Jews would reject Jesus. That doesn't sway the validity of who He was.
The fact is: thousands and thousands of Jews DID agree that Jesus was the messiah and came to fulfill Judaism. I'm not sure why you - an atheist- focus on Judaism so much. In the first century, there was no distinction like that. Really, Christianity by its very meaning, could only be the fulfilment of Judaism. You can believe it or not. You obviously do not. That's fine. But you have no business chiming in on the matter, you're an atheist.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#502959 Dec 29, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
The New Testament to the Church fathers wasn't a Book. It was a Sacrament. The Christian Bible didn't become "the Bible" until the 4th century. Still, it didn't supersede the Eucharist. Fundamental Christians need to face this truth and quit fantasizing that Jesus started a Book for them to interpret His ministry on. He started a Church, like it or not.
Never happened.....Scripture says you are lying....He never started "a Church"....
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#502960 Dec 29, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
Each new male-"contributor" of words claimed to be certain that god was speaking though him to others.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>
In the second page of the King James version of the bible the words read as follows......
THE BIBLE
THIS BOOK REVEALS THE MIND OF GOD, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.
ITS DOCTRINES ARE HOLY, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.
READ IT AND BE WISE, believe it to be safe, and practise it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.
etc., etc., etc.
WOW! Does that mean we finally got you back?!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#502961 Dec 29, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is your food?? Where does Jesus say to 'take this Bible and eat it, for this is my body"?
Why don't you stop and consider where the Bible came from. Its not one book, its a collection of books. It didn't come with a list, a group had to sit down and decide which books to include; it didn't come with chapters and verses, somebody broke it down with emphasis on certain passages they deemed important. It didn't come in a complete, printed and highlighted book. Somebody had to copy it while an earthly authority made sure it was done properly.
The Bible wasn't simply created. It was DEVELOPED within the Holy Catholic Church- the only Church started by Jesus Christ. Biblical facts destroy Protestant non catholic fundamentals. I see you fighting feverishly trying to sustain a lie called 'bible only Christianity'. That title itself doesn't even make sense. Itching ears Preston. Many people in the last 200 yrs had itching ears.
Catlic Bible History Truth

Why do non-Catholic authorities reject the Apocrypha as being a part of the sixty six books of the canon?

There are mainly five reasons:

1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.

2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired Scripture.

3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.

4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

5. They show contradictions in the Bible.

mo coming,,,
Liam

Chicago, IL

#502962 Dec 29, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Never happened.....Scripture says you are lying....He never started "a Church"....
Yes Ox, we know how you stand. Jesus started a Book so you could determine 2,000 yrs later that He wasn't God.

The Bible isn't one Book, its a collection of Books. If Jesus Christ started installed the Bible for Christians, then give me a verse where He reveals the list. Oops. What will you do with this dilemma. I know, how about you completely ignore it and pretend the Bible is still yours to decipher. That way your hands are washed as you stand before 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
does your pet even like you 3 min Kissez8098 3
Ladies, do u wear minis to get touched up or pu... (Nov '12) 4 min Lucy 1979 93
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 min X Pendable 184,665
The 13 impossible crises that humanity now faces 6 min Squirtyy7755 2
Gen. Mattis Is Trump's SecDef Pick. Why That Is... 10 min Kizz2938 2
Horny snapchat usernames 14 min Rider1043 82
The Orwellian War on Skepticism 17 min Desirezzzz4251 2
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr karl44 87,900
The Future of Politics in America 2 hr Insults Are Easier 177
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Crushy9254 284,475
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 3 hr Dolly6807 447
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Spank9090 977,198
More from around the web