Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Comments (Page 19,484)

Showing posts 389,661 - 389,680 of529,565
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“OneLordOneFaithE ph4:5”

Since: Apr 08

Saint John Paul II Pray forUS.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404604
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

preston wrote:
<quoted text>star, this guy extended to John from NJ a homosexual invitation before John died. so anyone can see how evil that he is. and for him to claim that he is a Christian is as rediculous as mr fraud claiming to be a preacher.
Not sure about the first line..

All this time I thought 4 was a women. lol
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404605
Nov 24, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
-
<quoted text>
-
-
oh. NOW I get it.
The state officials that did all the torture and murder for the Catholic Church were what?...Protestant?
-
hellooOooo the *state officials* who did the murder and torture were CATHOLIC or else it could NOT have happened! or wait could they have been Muslim? or Pagan?
I challenge you to approach your claims with an unbiased angle.

You will undoubtedly see how foolish you been reciting the same old propaganda about history....fed to you by bigots who wish nothing but the annihilation of the Catholic Church.
If you're a true Christian and interested in truth, you will see pass the falsehoods people spread about the Church.
If you are just a bigot, and do not care about truthful evidence, you'll carry on with ignorance as if you never heard it.
Balls in your court.
Dust Storm

Pipestone, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404606
Nov 24, 2012
 
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
guest
I agreee. You are silly.
You have listened to propaganda so much, you can't tell what is real and not real....
Catholics didn't go door to door....
Catholics didn't gather up heretics....
Catholics didn't torture and murder....
It was the state(countries) that did these. The CC made inquiry into them(thus the name Inquisitions) under torture from the state(never by the RCC), and formulated an opinion as to whether these allegations of heresy were true or not. If found true, the states executed out their various sentences....
The BBC not known for its fairness toward the Catholic church agrees in its documentary on the myths of the inquistions.

Interesting reading for those who are willing to look with an open mind.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologeti...

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protes...
preston

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404607
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

StarC wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure about the first line..
All this time I thought 4 was a women. lol
no, no woman is that mean and evil

“OneLordOneFaithE ph4:5”

Since: Apr 08

Saint John Paul II Pray forUS.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404608
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

StarC wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church IS alway in agreement with Scripture!!
Read it slowly so you can understant...
Both Paul and Jesus have said.....
Jesus much prefers that priest do not marry. He made this quite
clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up "all" to follow
Him, saying, "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for
name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life
everlasting." (Matt. 19:27-29).
And St Paul says …: "He that is
without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the
Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is
for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he
is divided." [1 Cor. 7:32-33]
"In other words, matrimony is good – Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church – but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments – that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law – under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law."

Can't be any more clear.

4 replied....
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Read this very slow and maybe you will finally be able to respond. The RCC has taken to opposing stands in regards to married priests. WHICH ONE is biblically correct? Comprehende?
Read carefully, slowly and maybe 30 or more times.[lol]..

BOTH ARE BIBLICAL!!!!!

AS stated above.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404609
Nov 24, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
-
<quoted text>
-
-
clay ... "Look, the Catholic Church *in Medieval times* desperately tried to repel the forces that were surrounding it. The Crusades were first launched to *take back lands already conquered my Muslims*."
-
And Once again, the Catholic only goes back in history to the point where the ACTUAL TRUTH does not mess with his perception of it.
-
BEFORE the Medieval Times and the Crusades, there was Constantine traipsing around the Holy Lands *conquering* in the sign of the Cross...CLEARLY 300 years before Mohammad and Islam and Muslims.
-
I've said it before, I'll say it again:*Islam* is the Arabs' reaction and response to Constantine and his murderous wars to conquer the land for the church - the Roman Catholic Church. Arabs - who became 'united' under Islam - learned their art of "Murdering in the Name of God" by watching the Catholics do that very thing (Murder in the Name of God) for 300 years.
-
I don't know what you're talking about. If you have evidence of the Roman Catholic Church waging war on their neighbors - thus,'teaching' future Muslims how to be brutal, then I wanna see it. If not, you shouldn't be making crap up.
Please Please don't confuse wars between the Roman Empire ( and then the Bryzantine Empire) on neighbors as some sort of Catholic plot. Man, it was politics and war. The same crap that has happened in every century; on every continent; and every religion and race since the beginning of time. To somehow single out Roman Catholicism as the culprit is unfair and downright deceitful.
Of course, this is no problem to professional bigots who wish nothing but the destruction of the Catholic Church.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404610
Nov 24, 2012
 
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
The BBC not known for its fairness toward the Catholic church agrees in its documentary on the myths of the inquistions.
Interesting reading for those who are willing to look with an open mind.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologeti...
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protes...
If the BBC says something in favor of the Catholic Church, then it's gotta be true!

“OneLordOneFaithE ph4:5”

Since: Apr 08

Saint John Paul II Pray forUS.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404611
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

4GVN wrote:
<quoted text> No you don't defend, you offend with such statements as 'your phoney little church'. That is not defending, and you know it.
You do the same, don't you!!?!!

remember this..... you attack, I defend!
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404612
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

StarC wrote:
Continue
<quoted text>
CRUSADES
‘First, the Christian nations of Europe were definitely not the aggressors. The Moslems had been aggressors against the Christians since the seventh century. Their attacks on Christian countries were still going on in the eleventh century. In 1071 the Turks had attacked and virtually annihilated the Byzantine army at Manzikert. It was this defeat that led the Byzantine Emperor to appeal to the Pope for aid against the Moslems. The Christian countries of Europe were clearly justified in defending themselves against Moslem attacks and also in going on the offensive in order to prevent future attacks. At no point did the Crusaders attack the Moslem homeland, Arabia, but only those originally Christian territories that the Moslems had conquered.
Second, it certainly was and is appropriate for Christians to defend themselves and the innocent and helpless against attacks, which is exactly what the Crusaders were doing. It is also appropriate for Christians to try to regain lands which their enemy had conquered, as was the case with the Holy Land. The religious significance of the Holy land makes it even better that Christians try to regain it rather than worse, since Christians had every right to govern the lands where Christ had walked and to protect them from desecration.
Finally, there were certainly abuses during the Crusades, most notably the Sack of Jerusalem and the Sack of Constantinople, both of which are discussed below. But an immoral action during a war does not detract from the justice of the cause of the war. The immoral action should be condemned, as Godfrey de Bouillon condemned the Sack of Jerusalem and Simon de Montfort condemned the Sack of Constantinople, but the war itself remains just.”
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history...
We sacked Constantinople and later Pope John Paul II publicly apologized to the Orthodox.
Basically, Pope John Paul II took the high road and bit his tongue.
Because the Orthodox did horrible things to Catholics prompting the sacking.
Am I right? Im not an actual historian, but i feel i read enough books to get a birds eye view of that time period.

I welcome any correction or info..
7th Day Catholics Rock

Poplar Bluff, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404613
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

preston wrote:
BTW, where are mr and ms fraud.
did reggie and Anthony run them off by bring up their continual lies?
or maybe topix kicked him off for the THIRD time.lol
I did find where John from NJ caught you and truth in lies.
Comments (Page 13,393)
John from NJ
Since: May 08
16,556
Belle Mead, NJ
Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278857
May 27, 2011
preston wrote:
<quoted text>lol. why are you discussing water baptism with john.
he is in agreement with you. he has stated that he was sealed by the Holy Spirit when he was Baptised. that is your doctine also.
John from NJ wrote:
Another lie.
I never said that.
John from NJ
Since: May 08
16,556
Belle Mead, NJ
Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278858
May 27, 2011
Comments (Page 13,393)
Judged:
1
1
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, Cowboy...when he was baptized at 3 months old.....and NO this is NOT what is BIBLICAL!!!
John from NJ wrote:
And now a lie from you.
3
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
YEP!
I believe that John from NY told me a long time ago that he was baptized at 3 months old....
Believe me, he will tell you.....
I told him a long time ago that he needed to get baptized again to NO avail.
John from NJ wrote:
His SOUL not mine!
And again nothing that I ever said.
Be careful about your soul since you have broken one of the Ten Commandments which may not be pleasing to God.
I never said that.
preston wrote:
<quoted text>johns church doesnt believe in the Word of God.
his church believes that Luke was one of the two that Jesus met on the road to Emanaus, but the Bible indicates otherwise. this is just another problem with believing traditions over God.
yet Luke himself records who those two were, even though he doesnt mention their names.
Luke chapter 24
10It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
11And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
12Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
13And, behold, two of them(SEE THAT JOHN) went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
LOL
John from NJ wrote:
And here we see part of the folly of sola scriptura which breeds ignorance and not much more.
Preston wrote:
"johns church doesnt believe in the Word of God.
his church believes that Luke was one of the two that Jesus met on the road to Emanaus, but the Bible indicates otherwise. this is just another problem with believing traditions over God."
What Preston is ignorant about regarding that (what he is really ignorant about would take pages) is that two of the Gospel writers used "he" instead of "I" when writing their Gospels and talking about an event.
It has only been known for 2000 years but he has not a clue.
And he claims to know the Bible and to be able to preach about it.
Is it any wonder why I and the Roman Catholics here don't take him, and most do it yourselfers using Sola Scriptura seriously.
Lord have mercy on those he has mislead with his pride being foremost in his character instead of intelligence.
7th Day Catholics Rock

Poplar Bluff, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404614
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

preston wrote:
<quoted text>28 years ago, when that Happened in that litle church.
and the difference betwwen me and you is this. I have spiritual experinces that I can recall and testify, you on the other hand, have none since you follow the false prophetess ellen white and your link showed that the other night.lol.
and I would venture to say that after that post, YOU never saw any anger or rage coming from hank.
and when he has said something that I disagree with it is the same thing. we both know what the oher person belives in and we settled any differences between us a long time ago, and as I have said many times, Hank is a good guy and one of the nicest on this forum, however I cant say the same about you.
people judged YOU, not your post, as you are acting like the devil and trying to stir up trouble, and old mr fraud sets on the sidelines and remains silent, knowing that you support the devil and his false prophetess ellen white.
You can post all you want to about Ellen White I DO NOT FOLLOW HER..........rotflol.......

You did state you saw Jesus and you also stated you are an apostle etc and you did state you was flying over vietnam ( I think this was on arrival there if I recall corect)when you met him.
preston

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404615
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

7th Day Catholics Rock wrote:
<quoted text>I did find where John from NJ caught you and truth in lies.
lol, no he didnt.

john and I argued a lot.
preston

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404616
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

hey why dont you find the post where your buddy tried to entice john into a affair?
preston

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404617
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

7th Day Catholics Rock wrote:
<quoted text>You can post all you want to about Ellen White I DO NOT FOLLOW HER..........rotflol.......
You did state you saw Jesus and you also stated you are an apostle etc and you did state you was flying over vietnam ( I think this was on arrival there if I recall corect)when you met him.
you dont ever "recall" correctly.

and it was your link to Clay that showed ALL of the sda doctrines links etc.and then you tried to rationalize it by saying that you use even JW links to bolster your possition, and why any Chsistian would beleive anything that a jw says is beyond me.

lol

getting back to me in vietnam, what are you tying to show?

at it stands right now, you are about as clueless as any person that I have ever saw.

getting back to the Apostle office. I have said several times and so I say it again.

that is the office that God gave me and told me that is what I am, and He gave me the book of Romans where Paul said that he had seen the Lord. that is ONE of the main criteria for this office.

another is this verse that people take out of contecxt since they usually dont have a clue about the Bible.

MANY ARE CALLED(into the ministry)BUT FEEW ARE CHOSEN, as I was , when just a lad of 12 years old.
my story hasnt changed, ask Dust Storm, not the idiot(lower case) that beleives in OSAS.

BTW ARE YOU JEALOUS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD THOSE EXPERIENCES NOR WILL YOU EVER, SINCE YOU belong to the devil.

dont you know that I know why you are asking these questions. trying to poke holes in my Testimony,

BUT I HAVE NO FEAR ABOUT THAT. THE TRUTH STANDS ON ITS OWN MERITS.
preston

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404618
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

preston wrote:
<quoted text>lol, no he didnt.
john and I argued a lot.
and I wish he was here now, clay asked a question and John would have been the pefrect person to answer it. he was great on History of his church
Dust Storm

Pipestone, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404619
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Deut. 19:18-19

18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.

Inquisition
4GVN

Sikeston, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404620
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

StarC wrote:
StarC wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church IS alway in agreement with Scripture!!
Read it slowly so you can understant...
Both Paul and Jesus have said.....
Jesus much prefers that priest do not marry. He made this quite
clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up "all" to follow
Him, saying, "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for
name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life
everlasting." (Matt. 19:27-29).
And St Paul says …: "He that is
without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the
Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is
for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he
is divided." [1 Cor. 7:32-33]
"In other words, matrimony is good – Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church – but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments – that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law – under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law."
Can't be any more clear.
4 replied....
<quoted text>
Read carefully, slowly and maybe 30 or more times.[lol]..
BOTH ARE BIBLICAL!!!!!
AS stated above.
So the RCC is biblical when it allows the priests to marry, and it is biblical when it restricts the priests from marrying. Wellll, I guess that makes as much sense as any of the rest of your posts.(rolling eyes, raising left eyebrow, and wondering what in the world is wrong with you).
Dust Storm

Pipestone, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404621
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
We sacked Constantinople and later Pope John Paul II publicly apologized to the Orthodox.
Basically, Pope John Paul II took the high road and bit his tongue.
Because the Orthodox did horrible things to Catholics prompting the sacking.
Am I right? Im not an actual historian, but i feel i read enough books to get a birds eye view of that time period.
I welcome any correction or info..
This would be a good start. I would encourage you to read it and bookmark the page to study the many great articles accompanying it on the side.

The Sack of 1204, what happened?
By Mark Bonocore

I've recently been reading a book by John J. Robinson called "Dungeon, Fire, and Sword --a history of the Crusades". Robinson is clearly no friend of the Roman Catholic Church, and I will even go so far as to say that he is anti-Catholic in his point of view, but he does give an interesting account of the Crusader's sack on Constantinople in 1204. I thought I'd share this with you, so that we might explore the history. This is why I'm using "anti-Catholic Robinson" as the source. While I am certainly not defending the atrocities committed, I think many will find it enlightening that the sack of Constantinople was not a "diabolical plan" sponsored by the papacy. It was a very sad story all around.

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthod...
Fr Robert Dye

Muskogee, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404622
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

StarC wrote:
Happy Thanksgiving, All!
"The Church of ALL people have six new Cardinals, from America, Lebanon, India, Nigeria, Columbia, Philippines…
“Vatican Radio) Pope Benedict XVI created six new Cardinals on Saturday in an Ordinary Public Consistory for the purpose here at the Vatican. The six new “Princes of the Church” are: Archbishop James M. Harvey, Prefect of the Papal Household; His Beatitude, Bechara Boutros Raï, Maronite Patriarch of Antioch in Lebanon; His Beatitude, Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal, Major Archbishop of Trivandrum in India and head of the Syro-Malankara Church; Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria; Archbishop Ruben Salazar Gomez of Bogotá, Colombia; and Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila in the Philippines. The Cardinals are the “Clergy of Rome”. They are responsible for electing the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope: the Successor to St. Peter, and Vicar of Christ on Earth – the universal Pastor of the universal Church. Pope Benedict XVI took the universality of the Church as the theme of his allocution to the participants in the Consistory, focusing the meaning of the word,“Catholic”–“A word,” he said,“which indicates an essential feature of the Church and her mission.” Below, please find the full text of the Holy Father's allocution“
“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”
http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp...
.
The thing I found most interesting is that two of the new Cardinals of the Catholc Church are not Roman ... they are from other rites.
.
Rob
4GVN

Sikeston, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404623
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Pad wrote:
<quoted text>Your post here is down right offensive,and because you really believe that I rely on Protestant propaganda to make a n opinion about the RCC.I was raised a Roman Catholic,lived amongst hundreds of RCs of cultural and thnic baskgrounds which included:Italian,Polish,Slovak ,and Ukrainian Catholics.Oh I forgot the biggest group the I R I S H. So treating me as though I have been brainwashed or completely influenced by Prots is wrong and offensive.
I know just as much about the history of the RCC as you do,and was raised in a strong Catholic family who were very strong in keeping Catholic beliefs close to them.
You are the one who has no clue!
Agree, and it shows.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 389,661 - 389,680 of529,565
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••