Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 675528 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: Nov 08

usa

#457557 Jun 29, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>hiding money in Switzerland and declaring bankruptcy,how interesting.
tried to read the story you posted and it says not found, you'll have to post another, there are dozens out there to choose from, the story is known world wide, there was suspicion going on for many months but they did not know who was involved or chose not to say until now, it could of came out now because the new pope did say he's going to change things, which is a dangerous thing to do, the last pope who said that, was found dead 33 days after he became pope.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457558 Jun 29, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd be surprised, people play all kinds of games on these boards. I couldn't believe some of the stuff I read on those other threads. A lot of people were complaining because topix doesn't really monitor. Unfortunately, there was some serious damage done to people's reputations and it had to be taken further. A few years ago there was a big to-do involving several states investigating topix. But they keep getting away with it. It's amazing they're still in business.
And yet---here you are.
You surely must enjoy being in that "lower element" with all the rest of us "dastardly" folks. You is one of us now...jist accept it.
Here...[passes the mason jar of 200 proof], but Regina reaches fer the "ripple" instead. LOL!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457559 Jun 29, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.)“She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.”( De festo Assump., sermon 2) When the immaculate conception was first presented in the year 1140 it was opposed by Bernard of Clairvaux also Thomas Aquinas adamantly taught Mary was a sinner. This is something the Catholics need to deal with.
In fact this whole doctrine is fairly new not an apostolic tradition. It was in 1547, at the council of Trent that the Catholic Church announced the sinlessness of Mary enabling her to avoid venial sins. In 1620 Pope Paul the 5th forbade anything contrary to the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception to be said publicly under threat of excommunication. In 1622 Pope Gregory the 15th forbade any contradictory statements of her immaculate conception to be made in private. And so began the official elevation of this servant woman the mother of the humanity of the Lord. Until Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin"), but that the reason she never sinned at any time during her life was because she was unable to sin.” Then in 1950 Pius the 12th said,“Mary the immaculate perpetual virgin mother of God after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”
Thomas Aquinas adamantly taught Mary was a sinner.
It wasn't ever accepted until the pope finally pushed the magic button in 1950.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#457560 Jun 29, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Because either way, you're receiving the Lord.
Consider the passage of the two men on the road to Emmaus.(Luke 24). They didn't recognize Him nor the Scriptures until Jesus sat down, pulled out some bread, blessed it and gave it to them.
On this occasion, Christ didn't use wine and the partaking was no less profound.
"They ran to the eleven and told how Christ was revealed to them in the breaking of the bread"
28 By this time they were nearing Emmaus and the end of their journey. Jesus acted as if he were going on, 29 but they begged him,“Stay the night with us, since it is getting late.” So he went home with them. 30 As they sat down to eat,[b] he took the bread and blessed it. Then he broke it and gave it to them. 31 Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And at that moment he disappeared!

He did not say "This is my body"....now did He????

The reason they recognized Him not is because "But God kept them from recognizing him."

The reason they recognized Him has nothing to do with Him blessing the bread...they knew whom was He because God allowed it "Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him."

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457561 Jun 29, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
When your god sits a Muslim on his right side, are you going to correct god and tell him that is YOUR place to spend eternity???
If you think "I" am wicked, just wait until you try ordering your god around up there in the sky. You ain't seen nothin yet!
:)
You are witnessing the "bashing bible" in action. The bible isn't in itself, to blame... it is the entity that utilizes it.
Human Being

Ville Platte, LA

#457562 Jun 29, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
I don't believe that any religion can guarantee I will be rewarded with eternal bliss in an afterlife ... so it's nothing personal when I won't join your specific cult.
I don't believe that those in any religion can know the future ... so it's nothing personal when I don't believe that your cult knows the future.
I do understand however that you take every remark that doesn't agree with your religious beliefs personally, because you are certain that I have offended your god.
Well, when you stop offending other people's supposed gods, I will stop offending yours ... and if and when THAT miracle occurs, there will be total silence on all religious FRONTS.
June:

I agree. Except not everyone has to agree with me, nor do I think you offend, or am I personally offended by your beliefs.(Of course, most on here do not have experiences in common.)

Thats a done deal with me.... Kind of a pre-requisite.

Welcome to my side.(smiles)

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457563 Jun 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
{{{{GASP}}}}
You don't mean--"SMOKEY CAMP" do you?
Who knows what a god that created evil will do to these right-fighters when they arrive in the hereafter for their "expected" rewards?

It makes me wonder if Jehovah agrees with all of them, or none of them, or some of them?

Rumor has it that Jehovah can be a REAL hot-head ... and it seems he did at least at one time seem to favor only those who practiced Judaism!

:)

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457564 Jun 29, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not surprised at your reply, but I never said everyone who is not in His Church, nor am I choosing for God. That's what you are reading into it. This is one reason why I don't like communicating on these message boards.
I don't believe that at all. I don't think you are intelligent enough to not be caught up in your lies...that's more likely the reason you have suffered any disdain.
Human Being

Ville Platte, LA

#457565 Jun 29, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
You're most welcome! Robert was very generous in his response saying that those personal attacks against him give him an opportunity to practice virtue. He holds no animosity against his accusers. Nevertheless, I know he believes in God and am not afraid to take his back when he's being attacked. Too many people don't want to get involved, but I don't go for that nonsense. That's why there's so much evil around, everybody's afraid to speak up.
ReginaM

If we aren't turning into good wine as we age, we are turning into vinegar....

Its a pleasure to age, and always time to share.

Thank you for your words and thoughts.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457566 Jun 29, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>no he didn't as I said peter never was in Rome, study the writings of Paul and you'll see peters name is not there as far as any church goes.
I agree...and I can give you all the verses in the bible that can prove that as a fact if you know the history timeline of the church.
Either the bible is lying, or the CC is...simple as that.
Most of it is from Paul's own writings.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457567 Jun 29, 2013
From my perspective, a creator that would allow suffering in his creation could never be trusted, as the suffering would BE for the creator's bullying enjoyment.

"But I was assured if I worshipped you, you would reward me with eternal bliss."

"And you believed those lies??? You will now get what I choose to give you ... not what you demand of ME. I am NOT your play-thing as you thought was the truth when you were on earth. How do you like those "apples?"
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#457568 Jun 29, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
ReginaM
Yes. I was aware of this as well.
I think this thread is tame, because on others, there are people wildly out of control, and this one is "tame", and they(seeking to be out of control) get a certain rise out of the newcomers, but old-timers keep their cool. And so the thread stays pretty calm when "they" leave.
Its sort of like learning who you can talk with, without some sort of serious tirade....So those interested in sharing, do so with a certain caution.
Unfortunately, I didn't practice that certain caution. Now I know better. There's only one reason for any non-Catholic to be on this thread...and it has nothing to do with sharing. They have an agenda, a goal that they will accomplish no matter how they have to do it. They have no boundaries and will say anything. God help the person who objects.
Over the years I've seen Catholics literally run off this thread by these vicious animals. They lied about them, took their words out of context, hounded them mercilessly. They want free reign and when they don't get it they make the worst sinner look like a saint in comparison. You can't tell me about this bunch, I've seen too much here. Maybe it is tamer, but only just. I fear there are a lot of Napoleon complexes at work here, lol. You can always tell.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457569 Jun 29, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
The proof, I think, is overwhelming, especially in the case of 2 Peter. I've often posted a list I compiled in about half an hour of qualified authors who hold 2 Peter bogus or even go so far as to say it is all but universally held so in at least critical scholarship. I won't post it again. But here's the permalink:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
As for Peter instructing someone to write it, that is a common apology. But the letter is widely recognized as dating deep into the 2nd century, which forbids that, as does its heavy reliance -- it's copying wholesale -- from Jude, also a 2nd century pseudograph.
But I get that it doesn't matter to some folks. The community to which you belong and the comfort you derive from your faith outweighs problems like this.
I think you are absolutely correct...most noteworthy, is that you have taken the time to research it extensively. However, your effort is unappreciated by the "induced" subjugates.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457570 Jun 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are witnessing the "bashing bible" in action. The bible isn't in itself, to blame... it is the entity that utilizes it.
The entities that wrote the bible and claimed it was truth from a god ARE to blame.

From my perception theologians of all religions were and are truth-less wonders.
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#457571 Jun 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that at all. I don't think you are intelligent enough to not be caught up in your lies...that's more likely the reason you have suffered any disdain.
Oh, go grow a few inches first. You aren't tall enough to talk to me.

(Robert, scroll past this.)

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457572 Jun 29, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
June:
I agree. Except not everyone has to agree with me, nor do I think you offend, or am I personally offended by your beliefs.(Of course, most on here do not have experiences in common.)
Thats a done deal with me.... Kind of a pre-requisite.
Welcome to my side.(smiles)
I always go back to your Catholic belief of how you will be saved and others will go to hell.

I don't respect your belief, nor do I respect your slovenly laziness of staying in such a belief.

So I hope you have that straight in your own mind. I am NOT in any way, shape or form on YOUR SIDE!

I don't pretend to respect beliefs that I don't respect.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457573 Jun 29, 2013
What God lacks is convictions- stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something- not try to be everything.
- Notebook, 1898
Mark Twain

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457574 Jun 29, 2013
God was created by evolution, inside the imagination of a primate.

Steve Fowler

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#457575 Jun 29, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>I am Orthodox.Sure people see the "rituals". However what it is all about is Personal Relationship with Christ. Without that the rituals are empty.For many people.Christ is in my heart.He is with me by my side through the joys and the heartaches of life- and I have had many of both. This in fact is what the "Born Agains" can offer the Catholic and the Orthodox.Personal Relationsjip with Christ. Though many Orthodox do not know it, that is the bottom line of Orthodoxy- Theosis.
Some "use" ritual(because they do not possess the capability of knowledge, understanding, and ability to surpass it) in their religious quest.
The same is true in Pagan traditions. Wicca etc. use "ritual for the same reason. The "wizard" has little or no need for the practice of ritual.
I expect you understand what I am relating.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#457576 Jun 29, 2013
Words have the ability to stir and manipulate emotions.

Concerning what we choose to believe, the onus is on us.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >

The following is one part Thomas Moore’s poem…..”Farewell but Whenever”, also called “The Scent of the Roses.”

Let fate do her worst, there are relics of joy
Bright dreams of the past which she cannot destroy;
That come in the night-time of sorrow and care
And bring back the features that joy used to wear.
Long, long be my heart with such memories filled
As the vase in which roses have once been distilled.
You may break, you may shatter the vase if you will,
But the scent of the roses will hang ‘round it still.

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 United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 22 hr Mr Sir 10,518
News Pope Francis meets 4 Imams to open a Christian-... Apr 21 Joe 30
News Pope opens free laundromat for the poor Pope Fr... Apr 12 True Christian wi... 1
News Role of women in the modern Catholic Church 'un... Apr 9 South Knox Hombre 1
News What Pope Francis and Obama may talk about (Sep '15) Apr 7 Teana Trump 53
News Pope Francis to stop off in Cuba on way to Unit... (Apr '15) Mar 31 whirlingmerc 9
News Pope Francis will do 'everything he can' to vis... Mar 31 Gods r Delusions ... 1
More from around the web