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
440,481 - 440,500 of 533,404 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456580
Jun 26, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It'd be like ordering a pizza. Call and it's there. Handy, but not miraculous.
Then why pray at all?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456581
Jun 26, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It'd be like ordering a pizza. Call and it's there. Handy, but not miraculous.
BTW, are you really equating suffering and dismemberment to calling for a pizza? Really?

And if God did regrow severed limbs then that certainly would be miraculous. God will supposedly move mountains if you have faith the size of a mustard grain, and prayer is supposed to be answered. It's all set-up to work, and yet there is no discernible follow-through on God's part.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456582
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

039
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:
In simplist terms Acquinas explain it:
""An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society .... Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body .... If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, iv, 1)."
Where does He say: And from this day forth, all newborn will have their soul stained with the original sin of Adam/Eve....or words to that affect...

Oxbow: In simplist terms Acquinas explain it:

So...this teaching of original sin did not come from God...but it is the teaching of Acquinas???????

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456583
Jun 26, 2013
 
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that makes sense to you is your "Editorialized,(bible only) inconsistent, relative truth, contradicting Protestant "Church History Book" that changes whenever and whichever direction
There is nothing else to say Ox! That about "sums it up" for you and your contradicting and inconsistent Protestant "bible only" "merry-go-round"--of 42,000 +(relative truth) denominations.
That neither qualifies...try again

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456584
Jun 26, 2013
 
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Oxbow" What did Christ mean when He spoke of eating His body and drinking His blood???
We have two very interesting Old Testament references which help us to understand what Jesus is talking about. The first is in Psalm 27:2 where David is talking about the wicked who are coming against him. "When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell."
We have to ask ourselves, does David literally mean that these are cannibalistic enemies or is he using picture language?
He is talking here about the wicked who want to profit from his death. They want to kill David because they want to obtain some kind of benefit from his death.
This example from the Old Testament gives us an insight into what Jesus means by eating his flesh—it means to benefit from His death on the cross.
**********
You left out the other one. David longed for water from a certain well that was in enemy held territory. Three of his men risked their lives to go and get some of that water. He refused to drink it, pouring it out as a sacrifice to the Lord, for, he said, is this not the BLOOD of the men who brought it? II Sam. 23
KayMarie
A other senior moment!!! Thanks for your help....

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456585
Jun 26, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, the Council of Nicea was a gathering of Christian bishops-not a political gathering.
Sure...Constantine and his right hand man were bishops right?
They were "ordered" by the head of state to bring all their writings "bound in leather"...Constantine gave orders to Eusebius Pamphili to use what was useful in those writings to establish a central state religion and discard(destroy) the rest. The whole meeting was like a barroom brawl, and finally Constantine (head of the empire and the meeting) became disgusted with it all, and made the irrevocable decisions that led to the "state" making the final decisions of the central beliefs and the institution of the church/state religion which was ordered to produce 50 bibles that would be accepted by the "church" (bishops), or they would risk excommunication or death.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456586
Jun 26, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure...Constantine and his right hand man were bishops right?
They were "ordered" by the head of state to bring all their writings "bound in leather"...Constantine gave orders to Eusebius Pamphili to use what was useful in those writings to establish a central state religion and discard(destroy) the rest. The whole meeting was like a barroom brawl, and finally Constantine (head of the empire and the meeting) became disgusted with it all, and made the irrevocable decisions that led to the "state" making the final decisions of the central beliefs and the institution of the church/state religion which was ordered to produce 50 bibles that would be accepted by the "church" (bishops), or they would risk excommunication or death.
You mean it wasn't a bunch of well-meaning church leaders who channeled God to tell them what letters and books to include in the canon?

You make it sound like a Papal election or something.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456587
Jun 26, 2013
 
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Oxbow" Catholics teach all born are guilty of the original sin of Adam and Eve.. This was God's reaction to same: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life...
Where does He say: And from this day forth, all newborn will have their soul stained with the original sin of Adam/Eve....or words to that affect...
**********
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
KayMarie
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

You quoted this Scripture in support that at birth all human beings have the stain on their soul of original sin....based on "For since by man came death"....

Following that logic, it can also be said that at birth all human beings are resurrected of the dead...based on "by man came also the resurrection of the dead"....which cancels the original sin you say all human beings are guilty of at birth!!!!!
Human Being

Kinder, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456588
Jun 26, 2013
 
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
And YOUR pre-conception ... that apparently from your point of view, is a conception that occurs before a conception, is that a Jew will come to save your Christian "soul" from spending eternity in hell with the rest of human refuse.
Your supposed "pre"-conception is no different than your conception.
:)
June:

You are very confusing.

Perhaps I should have used the word pre-supposition, instead of pre-conception. And I would have been more precise in my own meaning. Sorry to not have done so.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456589
Jun 26, 2013
 
After a long search I found a post by Robert F, now posting as "Human being" written on the following thread Page 58.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/T675JJ592...

Earlier on, Robert posted as a Catholic.

It was a short time after this that I left religion and became an Atheist.

How ironic that Robert is now again a Catholic who believes in a personal "god" and I am now an Atheist.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>

June VanDerMark wrote:

<quoted text>
As an afterthought Robert, I would like to know why you believe that "only" the Atheistic type of belief can be open minded and objective?
Atheism requires proof of all things. That to me, is NOT objective. It is subject to the need for proof. It does not rely at all on mystery.
I don't even believe as an Agnostic, but I believe that Agnostics are more objective than are Atheists. Agnostics leave the issues open-ended. Atheists demand proof ... and tangible proof is impossible to prove, in the issue of whether invisible spirit does, or does not exist.
I will await your reply, and thanks in advance.

Robert F's reply

It is hard to say....To me agnostics are weighed down with indecision, therefore no clear answers can be found, but are "eternally" befuddled by everything....This does not make them right or wrong, just a bit befuddled, or a lot....lol

As for atheists....for me its a bit more scientific in its approach. I could be swayed myself, as I live in a country that was more or less founded by deists, and I have a particular prejudice then, by culture, to be deistic in nature....And after a long search for a personal god I have come to realize that there is none.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456590
Jun 26, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
.....and it's not a strawman.
What empirical evidence of God would suffice for you?
Just throw a dart...there is none or you would have run to present it.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456591
Jun 26, 2013
 
I can explain what I believe, but I can't explain what I don't know.

Author Unknown
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456592
Jun 26, 2013
 
June VanDerMark wrote:
After a long search I found a post by Robert F, now posting as "Human being" written on the following thread Page 58.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/T675JJ592...
Earlier on, Robert posted as a Catholic.
It was a short time after this that I left religion and became an Atheist.
How ironic that Robert is now again a Catholic who believes in a personal "god" and I am now an Atheist.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
As an afterthought Robert, I would like to know why you believe that "only" the Atheistic type of belief can be open minded and objective?
Atheism requires proof of all things. That to me, is NOT objective. It is subject to the need for proof. It does not rely at all on mystery.
I don't even believe as an Agnostic, but I believe that Agnostics are more objective than are Atheists. Agnostics leave the issues open-ended. Atheists demand proof ... and tangible proof is impossible to prove, in the issue of whether invisible spirit does, or does not exist.
I will await your reply, and thanks in advance.
Robert F's reply
It is hard to say....To me agnostics are weighed down with indecision, therefore no clear answers can be found, but are "eternally" befuddled by everything....This does not make them right or wrong, just a bit befuddled, or a lot....lol
As for atheists....for me its a bit more scientific in its approach. I could be swayed myself, as I live in a country that was more or less founded by deists, and I have a particular prejudice then, by culture, to be deistic in nature....And after a long search for a personal god I have come to realize that there is none.
My computer is freezing up for some reason.so with my last post for awhile I say if there is justice in the univesrse you will find that statement is hogwash!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456593
Jun 26, 2013
 
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Oxbow" 21994
I am in total agreement with the following...Christ was/is not God. Whom will be the first Cathloic to debunk this truth....
And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds....
Note:
To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son
the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him
and to give this Son
the Son himself
**********
And where did you get the following:
It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds....
KayMarie
The reason Catholics are not debunking this info, is they used their search engines and know it came from: www.ewtn.com

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456594
Jun 26, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just throw a dart...there is none or you would have run to present it.
One of these religions could give quite a thrill to their believers.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

History of Religious Ideas, by Mircea Eliade.

Tibetan Religions

According to an ancient tradition, the White Light gave birth to an egg, from which emerged the primordial Man.

The lamas are masters of the atmosphere exactly like the shamans; they fly in the air, etc.
Human Being

Kinder, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456595
Jun 26, 2013
 
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I get that. You don't need to explain it again and again that you believe you will be saved by a Jew, and others will go to hell.
It's a small frame of mind in which you choose to dwell Oh self-perceived holy one!
June:

Lol.

Accusing me of having a small mind?

I never said, nor do I assume, or assert that others will go to hell, nor have I said I will go to heaven. That part of your "statement" is incorrect.

However, I do believe a specific person, Jesus, who was part Jew,(also having part of his lineage being non-Jew), is my Savior.

Straw-Man(Woman)!

Your argument is onus probandi. In other words you need to prove your point, that I believe such as you state.
(And I know you can't.)

:)

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456596
Jun 26, 2013
 
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>My computer is freezing up for some reason.
It must be one of your pet demons haunting you and taunting you. Maybe an exorcism is in ORDER.

:)

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456597
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Part 1

What did Christ mean when He spoke of eating His body and drinking His blood??? We have two very interesting Old Testament references which help us to understand what Jesus is talking about. The first is in Psalm 27:2 where David is talking about the wicked who are coming against him. "When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell." We have to ask ourselves, does David literally mean that these are cannibalistic enemies or is he using picture language? He is talking here about the wicked who want to profit from his death. They want to kill David because they want to obtain some kind of benefit from his death. This example from the Old Testament gives us an insight into what Jesus means by eating his flesh—it means to benefit from His death on the cross.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456598
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Part 2
Interestingly enough, there is an occasion in David’s life where he also uses the image of drinking blood. When he was on the run from Saul he gathered a group of mighty men around him. At one point he was fighting the Philistines who had taken the town of Bethlehem and he remarked how much he would love a drink from the well of Bethlehem. Three of his mighty men heard this and took him seriously. They fought their way through the Philistine line, got water from Bethlehem and brought it back to David. In 1 Chronicles 11:19 David says, "Far be it from me, O my God, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of these men who have put their lives in jeopardy? For at the risk of their lives they brought it." He says that to drink this water would be like drinking the blood of these men, not literally their blood, but it would be like profiting from their near death, since they risked their lives for him. You could say, enjoying the benefits which came at the expense of their lives.

That phrase really sums up what Jesus is talking about here. When He refers to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He is talking about enjoying the benefits which come from His death.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456599
Jun 26, 2013
 
That Buddha-myth also leaves much to be desired.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

History of Religious Ideas, by Mircea Eliade.

Tibetan Religions

The most terrifying meditation, known as gcod (to cut), consists in offering one’s own flesh to be devoured by demons.“The power of meditation gives rise to a goddess with saber aloft; she leaps at the head of the one who presents the sacrifice, she decapitates and dismembers him; then the demons and the wild beasts rush forward into the quivering debris, devouring his flesh and drinking his blood. The words pronounced allude to certain jatakas, which tell how the Buddha, in the course of former incarnations, offered his own flesh to famished animals and anthropophagous demons.”

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

7 Users are viewing the Pope Benedict XVI Forum right now

Search the Pope Benedict XVI Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 4 hr Hebrewsunite 8,193
Filipino Catholics hails new saints 6 hr INC - Iglesia ni Coitus 31
Pope to visit Sri Lanka, Philippines in... 9 hr psycho 4
Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis po... 15 hr ELIAS IBARRA 60
Greek Orthodox church in Gaza shelters Muslims ... Jul 26 Link Forrester 3
More Jul 24 True Christian witness 2
St. Peter's overflows for historic day of 4 popes Jul 24 ELIAS IBARRA 41
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••