Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 672769 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.

guest

United States

#426273 Mar 7, 2013
Clay wrote:
Thank you Dust Storm for taking the time to post this. I thought I remembered this story, but was too lazy to dig it up. Especially for someone who'll just ignore it anyway.
Thanks
-
-
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
No Problem. I dont have the time nor the inclination to deal with the baffoons left in here. Most of them are low on the intellectual scale and seemingly incapable of being able to view or speak in any kind of rational, objective, or truthful manner. Preston, LTM, Guest, the Confrinters, ox. LOL these people are completely nuts. Marge lights up and chimes in on occasion. They have ignored everything and provided no rebuttal of substance.

Basically the Vatican did not even start receiving information until 2001. Yet one would think all then Cardinal Ratziner had to do was read every letter that came in from around the world. In the case discussed here it was tercione who responded and the NY times, CNN and others who recirculated it were throughly debunked. Not one news source even inquired with any member of the church nor those on the trial panel to verify anything. It was reporting of the worst kind and puts them in tabloid trash credibility. They went quiet. More Dan Rather type stuff. lol Pope Benedict did alot not the least of which is ordering investigations and studies and implementing preventative measures. The bottom line is some members of the church failed greatly. The scope of the problem and dealing with it was faulty. However those who pretend they have no problems in their churches or schools and who just point fingers are also guilty of doing nothing and perpetuating a myth that it is a uniquely Catholic issue. The Church merely because of its size, structure, wealth and records provides a target. Its good to weed out the filth, but its bad to pretend it has, is or was being dealt with in a meaningful manner anywhere. Its always ez to play Monday morning quarterback. No matter what the church does or what we say it will not be enough, it will be excuses, it will be justying. blah blah blah. If these people had the answers it wouldnt still be a worldwide problem. Lots of people throwing rocks from Glass houses with no knowledge of what was done or happened or any real concern for children. Sad display. However Kudos to the Protestants who have taken the time to learn and even emulate the churches actions.
-
-
Dust Storm:... the Vatican did not even start receiving information until 2001.
-
LOL! there are ARCHIVES in the Vatican dating back CENTURIES on the child rapists harbored by your church.
-
But YOU choose to ignore the obvious - buffoon, indeed.
-
And when you choose to IGNORE Christ Jesus himself, "Call no man your father," over the pope insisting that you do .. that is where you go terribly wrong.
from.
the.
start.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#426274 Mar 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Gif / Confrinting with the word:
Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Why do you make up things about other people, when clearly this passage was writen 1900+ years ago, and plainly was not written about me?
Projecting your own faults onto others, will not help you in reconciling those faults ['demons'] that you abide in.
Here, I'll help you - this is what Jesus said:
(3) Jesus says:
(1) "If those who lead you say to you:‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’
then the birds of the sky will precede you.
(2) If they say to you:‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.
(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and outside of you."
(4) "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known,
and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.
(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty."
(5) Jesus says:
(1) "Come to know what is in front of you,
and that which is hidden from you will become clear to you.
(2) For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest."
(6)
(1) His disciples questioned him,(and) they said to him:
" Do you want us to fast?
And how should we pray and give alms?
And what diet should we observe?"
(2) Jesus says: "Do not lie.(3) And do not do what you hate.
(4) For everything is disclosed in view of <the truth>.
(5) For there is nothing hidden that will not become revealed.
(6) And there is nothing covered that will remain undisclosed."
(28) Jesus says:
(1) "I stood in the middle of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them.
(2) I found all of them drunk. None of them did I find thirsty.
(3) And my soul ached for the children of humanity,
because they are blind in their heart, and they cannot see;
for they came into the world empty,
(and) they also seek to depart from the world empty.
(4) But now they are drunk.
(But) when they shake off their wine, then they will change their mind."
Why don't you believe Jesus?
~~~
In you former post you wrote

New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>

"No, you got it all wrong.

I left Christianity, because of the morons.

Please make a note of it."

~~~

We have all taken note of your leaving Christianity.(if you ever were a Christian)...a long time ago...

What you post here is foreign,(has no semblance) to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Christianity ...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426275 Mar 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL-
Are you simply not singing to the choir from a different hymnal?
What are you trying to say? I'm not singing at all and I don't own any hymnals.

Why do you try to mislead others with false information and blatant lies?

Do you find comfort in this?
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Arguing the veracity of the Gnostic gospels whilst disabusing the same of the canonical gospels is simply doing what you castigate all of us for.
Please post my exact statements concerning - how did you say it - oh yeah, "disabusing the same of the canonical gospels".

a. I never stated anything about the gospels, except that you would be smart to include them with the non-canonical teachings of Jesus, in order to grasp what Jesus was teachings.

b. With you describing some other action, once again, shows how you Catholics like to twist words into a totally different meaning that what was originally expressed. This double talk won't work with me. It may work with the other uuninformed so-called followers, but not with me.

I wonder if you even have the ability to discern what Jesus taught and why he did it the way he did. Nah, probably not. Sorry I even introduced it.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To paraphrase you, we could simply recite "why do you believe Thomas rather than Jesus"?
You could, and I would answer you the first time of why I do.

Because I am not afraid to admit through honesty what I've come to believe to be true - as I know it will only help me become a better person - instead of being mean, ornery, angry or even hate others, because they believe differently.

One sheds the old wineskin, because it is not needed when the new wine is drank.- Jesus

But you don't beleive Jesus, so why should I express my honesty with you? Because I know it is right to be honest, instead of believing in something that hasn't been proven to be just as valid.

How honest can you be?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426276 Mar 7, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, New Age Spiritual Leader, here it is:
Why do you think the Book of Acts should not be in the Bible?
Sorry Saban - I meant to include my answer to this question in my last post to you.

Off-topic - my opinion of what books are to be in the canon and which ones should not, is completely irrelevant to the forum's topic. In fact, my opinion has no bearing on whether a book would be removed or not.

In this case, no books in the Bible will be removed from it.

But I will give you an answer if it pleases you.

I'm happy with the book where it is at.

Why would you even ask me such an off-topic question?

You aren't very good at staying on topic, huh? Especially when it comes to yor salvation. You would be more concerned about other things, but alas, you are concerned only for me.

I don't need your concern.

"God" is the only one who know whom "His chosen" are, and get this - you don't get one darn tootin' say in it at all.

Too bad - so sad, huh?!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426277 Mar 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it IS clear, which is why I was dumbfounded that you said the church isn't mentioned in the Bible.
No specific "church" is mentioned, except a spiritual one.

Do you have some other information?
MICHAEL

Canada

#426278 Mar 7, 2013
Stan-an-Ollie wrote:
<quoted text>You are full of schidt to the eyeballs.
Yes. The Ten (10) Commandments makeUP an important part of what is important and there are 'some' things written in Genesis that make sense and still apply today. None-the-less, Roman Catholics stopped paying too much attention to the Old Testament. The important things from it they have committed to memory. Too bad that you and your kind haven't.
However, you NOT being a Roman Catholic would Not Really & Truly understand. Would you!!!
...oh yes, you forgot (or ignored) Stanley's comment. It's a hellava lot more pertinent than mine.
Ollie........I am 63, I was born a catholic. I left the church like so many others.

Did you know that in america less than 1 in 4 roman catholics attends mandatory sunday mass weekly? Imagine running a large corporation and only 25% of the employees showing up for work when required?(as stated by the american Bishops 2010)

MICHAEL

Canada

#426279 Mar 7, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
-
<quoted text>
-
-
Dust Storm:... the Vatican did not even start receiving information until 2001.
-
LOL! there are ARCHIVES in the Vatican dating back CENTURIES on the child rapists harbored by your church.
-
But YOU choose to ignore the obvious - buffoon, indeed.
-
And when you choose to IGNORE Christ Jesus himself, "Call no man your father," over the pope insisting that you do .. that is where you go terribly wrong.
from.
the.
start.
1700 years of CATHOLIC CHURCH documented clergy abuse. Canon laws and papal documents are the evidence right from the churches archives.

http://www.richardsipe.com/patrick_wall/execu...

2001 Dust Storm says....(lol)
Dan

Omaha, NE

#426280 Mar 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you trying to say? I'm not singing at all and I don't own any hymnals.
Why do you try to mislead others with false information and blatant lies?
Do you find comfort in this?
<quoted text>
Please post my exact statements concerning - how did you say it - oh yeah, "disabusing the same of the canonical gospels".
a. I never stated anything about the gospels, except that you would be smart to include them with the non-canonical teachings of Jesus, in order to grasp what Jesus was teachings.
b. With you describing some other action, once again, shows how you Catholics like to twist words into a totally different meaning that what was originally expressed. This double talk won't work with me. It may work with the other uuninformed so-called followers, but not with me.
I wonder if you even have the ability to discern what Jesus taught and why he did it the way he did. Nah, probably not. Sorry I even introduced it.
<quoted text>
You could, and I would answer you the first time of why I do.
Because I am not afraid to admit through honesty what I've come to believe to be true - as I know it will only help me become a better person - instead of being mean, ornery, angry or even hate others, because they believe differently.
One sheds the old wineskin, because it is not needed when the new wine is drank.- Jesus
But you don't beleive Jesus, so why should I express my honesty with you? Because I know it is right to be honest, instead of believing in something that hasn't been proven to be just as valid.
How honest can you be?
Sorry-
I thought that asking someone why they believed John instead of Jesus was you saying that John cannot be relied upon.
You just now said I didn't believe Jesus, so I'm not sure why the "honesty" lecture now.
Again, proselytizing is what it is, but exhorting me to hew to the Gnostic gospels to unearth something you say arrives at "self" is simply demanding that I hew to your personal vision, not "self".
Dan

Omaha, NE

#426281 Mar 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
No specific "church" is mentioned, except a spiritual one.
Do you have some other information?
You want a denomination named before denominations existed?

Are you Oxbow?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426282 Mar 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry-
I thought that asking someone why they believed John instead of Jesus was you saying that John cannot be relied upon.
You just now said I didn't believe Jesus, so I'm not sure why the "honesty" lecture now.
Again, proselytizing is what it is, but exhorting me to hew to the Gnostic gospels to unearth something you say arrives at "self" is simply demanding that I hew to your personal vision, not "self".
I haven't demanded anything from you. Please stop making up things about me.

As for your belief in Jesus, you only believe he stated less than half of his recorded teachings. Do you think I came tot his conclusion on my own? No, I base it upon your religious affiliation that you've already stated.

Why are you trying to double-talk your way around this?

Oh wait, it is what has been taught to you to do.

*sighs*

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426283 Mar 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a denomination named before denominations existed?
Are you Oxbow?
No - I want you to post to me, from your Bible, where the RCC is stated as the only "true church of salvation".

No I am not the "Rabbi".

Why? You aren't disappointed are you?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#426284 Mar 7, 2013
237
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim to follow the teachings or Jesus Christ--then "why is it" that you "fundies" don't believe, follow and adhere to what Jesus "clearly and specifically says---in the Gospels
1. Matthew 16:13-21 regarding His One True (Universal) Church
2. John 6:47-59 regarding HIS TRUE BODY AND TRUE BLOOD in the
Eucharist
The fact is that you bible only "buffoons" only follow what you "think" are the teachings of Jesus, or what you "personally" want to decide for yourselves, is "convenient" for you to believe. Bible only--"Pick and choose" Protestantism is what is known as "half-truth, half-heresy Christianity, of which you "fundies" have become experts in sola scriptura "deception!!
You are too kind!!!!

Thanks again for our honesty...

075
Your words: What's the problem? I said Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. Is it recorded in the Bible? No. Does that mean it didn't happen? If no, then why?

Your words plainly say that Catholics follow teachings of dead "saints".....Christi ans follow the teachings of Jesus Christ

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426285 Mar 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a denomination named before denominations existed?
Are you Oxbow?
I was just wondering, can you tell how others would perceive your statement as "double-talk", "misleading" and "uninformed"?

Well, if you can't, let me post my opinion, so you do see it from the outside:

- I know that there wasn't any specific denominations except (small "c") catholic [universal]. Not large "C" as you would liek to believe.
- Your question is trying to cause an argument. My response is to stop if from happening. You'd been better off stating what I did, "there were no denominations at that time", but oh no, you wanted to sound intelligence (failed) by using a question that as Saban likes to say, "loaded" - and the only answer - in your eyes - would be the one you give.

*sighs*

You aren't a so-called "Christian" or anything related, if all you try to do is deceive others by manipulating them through the questions you pose.

You really don't know any better, huh?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#426286 Mar 7, 2013
241
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You neglect the fact that Christ institutes the Church in scripture-to spread His word.
Why do you Bible-alone folks always forget that?
You are changing a common noun in Scripture to a proper noun to support your erroneous belief. God made you a promise!!!

Quote:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

225 219

The Bible teaches: But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
You say that is not so!!!!! God got it wrong!!!! That Catholics, instead, follow the teaching of their religion!!!!
Does not the Church, as you call it, teach that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sinless????

You are dodging my question..quote: Does not the Church, as you call it, teach that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sinless????

why is that??
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#426287 Mar 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing Saban, you did finally give me a straight answer. You have taken the first step in understanding Jesus' teachings. I hope you can keep this honesty rolling forward.
Okay so now that we can advance this discussion, you wrote:
"Your question, "Why do I think Paul was more enlightened than Jesus?" ----------> My answer once again:
Ready?? Are you sure? Yes? OK then...
Here it is...-------> I don't."
- okay you don't. Thanks for answering.
- Now since you don't, why do you think more value has been placed in "Paul", than with Jesus. The omission of GoThomas as part of the canon indicates that these teachings are lesser in value than of "Paul's letters" about Jesus. Why would anyone do this?
Well you sort of answered with this response:
"I think Paul's writings were inspired. I think God through the Holy Spirit was working through Paul. Therefore, I do not believe Paul's writings and Jesus' sayings could ever contradict."
- once again, I'm not discussing the contradictions, as I've already shown GiF in a previous post that "Paul" does teach what Jesus teaches in GoThomas, but it is Christianity that doesn't believe he does. So you opinion of "Paul" in this regard, is really not related and really is insignificant in a belief in Jesus. You do understand this, right? Meaning, if Jesus taught it already, what is the purpose of "Paul", especially when people have twisted "Paul's" preaching to mean something entirely different.
And then you went on to claim....
"My opinion is that Paul writings are neither more or less enlightened that Jesus' teachings. Why? Because they were the teachings Jesus wanted us to have. Happened to be through Paul."
- yes - just an opinion that you have instilled "faith" into, so you can believe the tales of other men. This is nothing new Saban. People have been doing this for centuries. The point you still miss is if Jesus is the "main focus of your belief", "Paul's" preaching doesn't matter. Unless you believe "Paul" over Jesus.
If you don't - and place "Paul" as 'neither more or less enlightened than Jesus", then why haven't you place "Paul" at the same significance as you have with just believing in half of what Jesus taught.
As you can see - it just doesn't add up. This is the contradiction you refuse to acknowledge.
It's not amazing except in your acknowledgement of it, finally..

It was the same answer I’ve given you over and over. I just presented in a way you couldn’t deny AGAIN.

You asked a question that you can perhaps answer along with the question I asked that you conveniently ignored.

Your question:
The omission of GoThomas as part of the canon indicates that these teachings are lesser in value than of "Paul's letters" about Jesus. Why would anyone do this?

My answer? IDK. Why do you think it as well as several other writings were left out?

My question you ignored for the third time:

Why do you think the Book of Acts should not be in the Bible?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#426288 Mar 7, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
My question you ignored for the third time:
Why do you think the Book of Acts should not be in the Bible?
I answered it, but it was off-topic.

Please try to stay focused on the title of this forum.

If yo have a beef against other beliefs, start your own forum to discuss them. Here your beef should be against the RCC, and not me.

Capice?

So - do you want to try again on this salvation thingie?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#426289 Mar 7, 2013
255
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hogwash!!! Both Jesus and Paul said it, recorded it and revealed it to all of us!!
To begin with: Jesus proclaimed it in Matthew 16:13-21 when it called in "My Church"!--It is the same Church that is recorded over 30 times in the New Testament. It is the same Church that the Apostles taught in and were Bishops, elders, priests and deacons (Acts 2). It is the same hierarchical, authoritative, visible Church that Paul, in his letter to the Churches in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Philippi, Colosse, and on and on (all visible authoritative Churches. It is the same Church that Paul refers to in I Tim 3:15 when he said: "The Church (not the bible alone) is the pillar, pinnacle and foundation of the TRUTH!! and --It is the same Universal-Catholic) Church that Jesus initiated, established and formed over 2000 years ago, recorded, confirmed and authenticated over and over and over again throughout Church History, overwhelmingly agreed upon documented writings by the Early Church Fathers, the biograqphical writings of the Lives of the Saints and by the Apologistic Historian Authors and writers (both Catholic and Protestant...... The fact that you "fundies" rebelliously and defiantly chose to "stick your head in the sand" like (vacuum brain) ostriches, ignoring historical and biblical TRUTH ---------(has never, nor will ever) change that TRUTH.'''' Your "bible only" confused and chaotic beliefs, have absolutely "no basis of biblical or Historical truth to back up "anything
that you believe--in fact sola scriptura was never believed by ANYONE until the 17th century. It is nothing but a MAN-MADE doctrine of "editorial/personal opinionated" beliefs. It is Just another one of the 42,000+ inconsistent, and contradicting Protestant denominations.
The Word of God is clear:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Show me one verse that contradicts these and you will have a fallible Bible...which is impossible...
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#426290 Mar 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Saban - I meant to include my answer to this question in my last post to you.
Off-topic - my opinion of what books are to be in the canon and which ones should not, is completely irrelevant to the forum's topic. In fact, my opinion has no bearing on whether a book would be removed or not.
In this case, no books in the Bible will be removed from it.
But I will give you an answer if it pleases you.
I'm happy with the book where it is at.
Why would you even ask me such an off-topic question?
You aren't very good at staying on topic, huh? Especially when it comes to yor salvation. You would be more concerned about other things, but alas, you are concerned only for me.
I don't need your concern.
"God" is the only one who know whom "His chosen" are, and get this - you don't get one darn tootin' say in it at all.
Too bad - so sad, huh?!
I'm trying to figure out how it is off topic since you've suggested Luke, if in fact the writer, was inaccurate.

Also the whole discussion between me and you has held GoThomas as your framework. It is not in my Bible.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#426291 Mar 7, 2013
261
Stan-an-Ollie wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus Christ annointed and appointed Peter as the Head of HIS Church. His Church is the Holy Roman Catholic Church and nothing else matters. Oh yes, there are good people who are members of other churches, but they are members of churches that 'broke' with the Catholic Church sometime in the past for whatever reason...the Church of England came into existance when Henry VIII wanted a divore, did NOt get approval from the Pope, broke with the Church and formed his own. And woe to those people under his rule who did Not follow him. Thousands had their heads lopped off and they were hoisted up on pikes.
In the years of the Life of the Catholic Church leading up-to-date, the 'torch' has been passed on to the next appointed Pope.
You are obviously, like so many hereIN, Not a Roman Catholic and not only know very little about the Catholic Church, but the operations of the Catholic Church are 'NONE' of your business.
Get Lost. Find your own Topic. Find or startUP your own church.
Stanley says that if you startUP a church, you should call it the Round Church because you seem to go around and around and around with the same bullschidt.
From your pope approved NABre...

"Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation.

I don't see one thing that begins to suggest "Catholic Church"....do you????
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#426292 Mar 7, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I answered it, but it was off-topic.
Please try to stay focused on the title of this forum.
If yo have a beef against other beliefs, start your own forum to discuss them. Here your beef should be against the RCC, and not me.
Capice?
So - do you want to try again on this salvation thingie?
When you claim the writer of Acts probably didn't have his facts straight, how is my question considered off topic?

How is your "Paul" question on topic if my "Acts" question is off topic?

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.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... Wed sharona 406
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Mar 18 Married in 10,456
News Pope Francis to visit Egypt on April 28-29: Vat... Mar 18 For an ISLAM-FREE... 1
News Pope Francis 'urges parents to have fewer child... Mar 18 Newt G s Next Rel... 24
News Benedict's Resignation: Blame Obama Mar 14 Texxy 1
News Pope discusses climate, immigrants in historic ... (Sep '15) Mar 13 Wall specialist 49
News The Real 'Muslim Ban' Is Happening in Muslim Co... Mar 6 synchronized 1
More from around the web