Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665064 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.

Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#510264 Jan 29, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Join your good buddy under your favorite rock and hiss til you are blue in the face...Lying Snake
You're projecting, thief.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#510265 Jan 29, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus reads Topix?
I never knew.
Dang.

He apparently uses those judicon things too.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#510266 Jan 29, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Sere would have been good at the part in mean girls that says, "He must have espn or something." lol Sere the understudy of Rosanna Rosanna Danna. Never Mind!
Nick starring as wild card Hendricks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =9C-fRdCmzDkXX
You people always devolve and regress to childish name calling as a deflection when faced with facts and reality. And you wonder why no one wants anything to do with you or your "fine" organization.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#510267 Jan 29, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text> I dont have to go anywhere, computer girl. I spent my life helping sex abuse victims and putting sex offenders behind bars and treating them.
I originally came here as a part of prevention, to the nonCatholics to understand sex abuse, and help educate re preventing abuse I also to compare notes re theology with Catholics.The Catholics here quickly showed me not all Catholics were like those I had known. What they did show me was a gift for name calling, arrogance, a lack of tolerance for any criticism no matter how delicate, and defense of victimization of all sorts.
And the history of posts is witness.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#510268 Jan 29, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
whom:
The objective form of who, used when who is not the subject of its own clause: whom did you say you had seen?; he can't remember whom he saw.
Usage: It was formerly considered correct to use whom whenever the objective form of who was required. This is no longer thought to be necessary and the objective form who is now commonly used, even in formal writing: there were several people there who he had met before. Who cannot be used directly after a preposition - the preposition is usually displaced, as in the man (who) he sold his car to. In formal writing whom is preferred in sentences like these: the man to whom he sold his car. There are some types of sentence in which who cannot be used: the refugees, many of whom were old and ill, were allowed across the border
Problem is, thief, you did not use it in the objective case. It was the subject of its clause.

You never studied, huh?
marge

Leesburg, GA

#510269 Jan 29, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Great Anthony I see all the Caths on Topix are going to Mass, Prayer, or Church work, or helping the hungry or poor. Well I gotta go too, off to work at the leper colony.
Maybe they realized there is no desired or fruitful dialog with you two. You were like a dear brother to me if you remember.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#510270 Jan 29, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Sera is in reality still a protestant who never really bought in to it and just converted for the sake of marriage to Nick, who was a non-practicing Orthodox for most of his adult life. He's recently found "religion" again and her rabid anti-Catholic background has rubbed off on him in a very detrimental way. I realized this when they went crazy and raged against the Coptic Orthodox Christian who was here some time ago. Their main reason for being here is to socialize with friendly anti-Catholic protestants, they have no real intention of charitable discussion with Catholics.
That is because there is no reasonable discussion with catholics. The minute any of you are on the spot and can't refute something you regress to ignorant name calling and defamation.
Your above statement is verification of it.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#510271 Jan 29, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're gang isn't defending the actions of the abusing church officials, then why the big charade and attempts to defame and ridicule all who even bring mention of it?
I've been sitting back watching all this, and it is laughable. The atrocities, however, are NOT.
Mention? ROTFL...I think posting about it daily and exclusively about the church for multiple years on abuse almost exclusively is a little more than mention. It has been addressed adnauseum. Reforms have been made and listed several times. In fact it brought reforms to many other churches as well. The schools are still in great need and orgnanizations in general. It is clear he has a vendetta against the Catholic church alone. Some Protestants have praised and emulated the church for its reforms to address the issue. Some have done nothing as well as schools and organizations.

Independent investigations, studies, scholars secular and protestant, insurance companies all say it is not a Catholic issue. If you think we wish our children to be harmed then try thinking. No atrocities are not funny, but too bad for you that you think attacking one church exclusively and ignorning the issue elsewhere is the answer and that you care. We have listed many things and given the information to counter the one sided accusations. Things have been done and continue to be done, but if all you want to to is encourage an attack on one church and turn a blind eye elsewhere feel free, but dont play the I care and you dont card.

So if you want to start a thread on abuse then go for it! If you want to just rail on the church and pretend its an excluisive club and then paint us as villains when we point out its not an exclusive club by those trying to paint that broad brush so be it. However dont pretend you really care. If you want to demand we abandon our church and belief and close our churches and that will solve everything then you need to get a clue. We arent defending abuse we are defending against hypocrites who blindly attack the church ignoring the problem everywhere rather than being an advocate for children everywhere. The church doubled the statutes of limitations, encouranged people to come foreward has insituted training programs for the laity, pscyhological evaluations, background checking programs, measures to ensure children are not left alone and many more. What does Mikey do? He condemns the church for having a policy that doesnt allow for kids to be left alone where preadators have more opportunity. Damned if we do or dont. Thats fair..lol We get the news we dont need Mikey or you to tell us what we know. Yeah alot of these cases are old. The church publishes openly the new ones. The programs are working. Can we guarantee it will never happen. Can anyone? If you have the final solution please feel free to share it with your reprentatives.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#510272 Jan 29, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
And your problem is you don't, eh?
Thief.
You got it!!!! I don't think....I know!!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#510273 Jan 29, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is, thief, you did not use it in the objective case. It was the subject of its clause.
You never studied, huh?
Quote: There are some types of sentence in which who cannot be used: the refugees, many of whom were old and ill, were allowed across the border

Likewise: The refugees, many of whom were old and ill, built churches!!!! I am asking whom are those whom!!!!
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#510274 Jan 29, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
You people always devolve and regress to childish name calling as a deflection when faced with facts and reality. And you wonder why no one wants anything to do with you or your "fine" organization.
Yeah when you get a fact let us know. Yeah there was no colorful adjectives or links or mocks to earn the ire in that camp. lol Maybe you can start swearing for us again to show us how the wonderful people like you do it. lol
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#510275 Jan 29, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it!!!! I don't think....I know!!!!!
Thank you for confirming that you don't think.

I doubt it comes as a surprise to anyone.

Thief.
Regina

Toms River, NJ

#510276 Jan 29, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look you.
You certainly do get upset when someone shows that you don't really know what you are talking about don't you.
If somebody does, I'll let you know.
Regina

Toms River, NJ

#510277 Jan 29, 2014
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text> Beautiful, honey....
If you call that strawman attack of defamation "beautiful?, you have a lot to learn about proper discourse and common decency.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#510278 Jan 29, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
Regina says "I'm afraid I don't have a taste for the jugular that they have" and then talks about my father, my wife, my marriage and my family.
Ya. You can coat a pig with the purest of gold, but inside, it is still, none the less, still a pig.
Regina

Toms River, NJ

#510279 Jan 29, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text> I dont have to go anywhere, computer girl. I spent my life helping sex abuse victims and putting sex offenders behind bars and treating them.
.
You people always devolve and regress to childish name calling as a deflection when faced with facts and reality. And you wonder why no one wants anything to do with you.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#510280 Jan 29, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote: There are some types of sentence in which who cannot be used: the refugees, many of whom were old and ill, were allowed across the border
Likewise: The refugees, many of whom were old and ill, built churches!!!! I am asking whom are those whom!!!!
Please provide a reliable source that says using whom as a subject is OK, thief.
Regina

Toms River, NJ

#510281 Jan 29, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya. You can coat a pig with the purest of gold, but inside, it is still, none the less, still a pig.
Regina

Toms River, NJ

#510282 Jan 29, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya. You can coat a pig with the purest of gold, but inside, it is still, none the less, still a pig.
You people always devolve and regress to childish name calling as a deflection when faced with facts and reality. And you wonder why no one wants anything to do with you.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#510283 Jan 29, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>==========
Gee whiz??/ I wonder why the "media" (echoes of Watergate) might distrust the Catholic Church's information????
Pretty obvious huh?

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) 2 min Jedi Mind Master 977,156
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min Rider on the Storm 87,809
The Future of Politics in America 7 min It aint necessari... 117
Need Gay under 16 Facetime numbers ;) (Feb '14) 19 min Dan sky 12
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 24 min Truthiness 405
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 34 min gundee123 1,206
Bruce Lee practising Wing Chun in San Francisco 41 min andrewsmith85 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 45 min Rider on the Storm 184,647
More from around the web