Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 599599 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: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488118 Nov 4, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
John saw Mary in her place in Heaven.
One myth saw another myth up in the sky.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488119 Nov 4, 2013
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam Yes I called you a dumb dumb, uneducated, and a fool
Nothing can compare with Christian love.

:)
Liam

Chicago, IL

#488120 Nov 4, 2013
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam Yes I called you a dumb dumb, uneducated, and a fool in the context of presenting Historical and Biblical facts that prove you are that which I call you.
My claims that you are uneducated were substantiated not unsubstantiated unlike your personal attacks that make no attempt to refute my facts nor do you present any to defend your assertions.
As in your post above the typical RC says you wrong, puts their fingers in their ears and that goes nah nah nah I can't hear you I am in the one true yadda yadda, you are not, nah nah nah.
The issue is not that I know your RCC beliefs the issue is I know them better than you.
I know their evolution, their history and you do not.
So for example the average Evangelical Protestant Christian today uses the NIV NASB or NKJV bibles, all of which use the oldest Manuscripts ever assembled. What that means is the Bible I use today is more accurate than the KJV of the 15th century and leaps and bounds more accurate than the Latin Vulgate because when these translations were made some 3000+ more ancient manuscripts had been discovered, found.
So it is the RC whose Bible is flawed.
Again you prove you have no knowledge of the history of what the RCC calls scripture let alone Evangelicals.
The books beyond the 66 in the RCC were added by the RCC at the council of Trent and the New Advent encyclopedia says so an official RCC endorsed book. the were never considered scripture by the RCC till the 1500's. I can give you RCC popes before this that did not believe they were as well as many early church fathers they never was unanimity that they were like the 66 and thus the RCC actually violates its own definition of holy Tradition.
Again you prove you are and uneducated dumb dumb.
I'm sorry for being a dumb dumb. I hope to one day be an intellectual superstar like you. I wanna memorize all the Bible verses too, that way it'll be easier to worship the Books as an idol like the born agains. Lol

Ok, now I realize I'm stupid, but you say the Catholic Church added 7 Books to the Bible at the council of Trent. How come when the Bible was first published on October 22, 1452, it contained 72 Books?

The bottom line is: your forced Biblical ignorance fools nobody on this forum.

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488121 Nov 4, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> An infant has no sin.
I suggest you don't tell that to those in religion who disagree, as they might wreak havoc on your sin-filled body.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488122 Nov 4, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know June, I think you are finally beginning to grasp certain characteristics of life.
"Self shifts with the tide of experience."
How right you are.
So then you admit that if you were starving, you would join me in eating the flesh of other dead humans???

Hardy party!

:)

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488123 Nov 4, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Jealousy will always be present in humans, as it appears here in your post.
Is it your desire to believe that I am jealous of you???
Liam

Chicago, IL

#488124 Nov 4, 2013
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam Yes I called you a dumb dumb, uneducated, and a fool in the context of presenting Historical and Biblical facts that prove you are that which I call you.
My claims that you are uneducated were substantiated not unsubstantiated unlike your personal attacks that make no attempt to refute my facts nor do you present any to defend your assertions.
As in your post above the typical RC says you wrong, puts their fingers in their ears and that goes nah nah nah I can't hear you I am in the one true yadda yadda, you are not, nah nah nah.
The issue is not that I know your RCC beliefs the issue is I know them better than you.
I know their evolution, their history and you do not.
So for example the average Evangelical Protestant Christian today uses the NIV NASB or NKJV bibles, all of which use the oldest Manuscripts ever assembled. What that means is the Bible I use today is more accurate than the KJV of the 15th century and leaps and bounds more accurate than the Latin Vulgate because when these translations were made some 3000+ more ancient manuscripts had been discovered, found.
So it is the RC whose Bible is flawed.
Again you prove you have no knowledge of the history of what the RCC calls scripture let alone Evangelicals.
The books beyond the 66 in the RCC were added by the RCC at the council of Trent and the New Advent encyclopedia says so an official RCC endorsed book. the were never considered scripture by the RCC till the 1500's. I can give you RCC popes before this that did not believe they were as well as many early church fathers they never was unanimity that they were like the 66 and thus the RCC actually violates its own definition of holy Tradition.
Again you prove you are and uneducated dumb dumb.
Now I realize again, that I'm not nearly as smart as you, but where is the verse where Our Lord gives us the list of Books for the Bible. I can't find it.

Bibleidolators is what you all are. The Bible is your idol.

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488125 Nov 4, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus,being fully divine,as well as,human...was,the only possible descendant of Adam WHo could be the PURE SACRIFICE ...
According to all theology ... Jesus did not CHOOSE to be a sacrifice. His father sent him to be crucified.

I wouldn't respect any father who sent his own son to be murdered ... especially when the father could see ahead of time that twenty centuries later, humans were still going to be fighting and killing each other over defending the dogmas in their own cults concerning who knows truth.

The theology is ludicrous!

Since: Sep 09

Vanderhoof, Canada

#488126 Nov 4, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry for being a dumb dumb. I hope to one day be an intellectual superstar like you.
Now that's better!

Giving the other person the credit to know truth is a switch in position ... and it could encourage world peace.

:)

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#488127 Nov 4, 2013
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>Preston, please explain what you mean by the Theotokos walked away from Jesus?
when she left Jesus back in Jerusalem. that is child abandonment. a crime as we know it today.

and she knew who He was and she walked away, a term that we call Backslidden,even tho marge et al says that it is impossible.

but thankfully she went back to Him

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#488128 Nov 4, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
John saw Mary in her place in Heaven. "I saw a woman clothed with the Sun".
The children at Fatima saw the same. At the Miracle of the Sun event, they saw her holding the baby Jesus while the Sun changed from purple to gold and spun about.
Funny how God grants the world scientific proof of His existence and a generation goes by and everyone forgets about it. Mary is dead in the grave they say. There are no miracles. Its a Catholic invention. The Miracle wasn't for Catholics, it was for the non Catholics and atheist in the crowd.
So Fatima is not in the Bible then? Boy I am so confused now....John saw Mary "I saw a woman clothed with the sun"...but that's not Fatima. The Orthodox don't comment either way about Fatima..some say it could have happened and some say "I don't know"....I personally don't believe it.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#488129 Nov 4, 2013
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>So Fatima is not in the Bible then? Boy I am so confused now....John saw Mary "I saw a woman clothed with the sun"...but that's not Fatima. The Orthodox don't comment either way about Fatima..some say it could have happened and some say "I don't know"....I personally don't believe it.
Mary is never mentioned again after Pentecost. she has no role in the Salvation of a person, she was given the task of bringing Jesus into this world and giving Him the Foster care required to bring Him into adulthood, from that point on, her mission was done and over..

what John saw is the beginning of the tribe of Israel from Joseph, and his siblings. it is to be taken as a History lesson of the Children of Israel, NOTHING MORE
Husker Du

Falls City, NE

#488130 Nov 4, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinions about contraception have varied in the Orthodox Church. There is complete unanimity that no form of contraception that is abortifacient is acceptable and there are definitive ecumenical canons that proscribe abortifacients
1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.
2)There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.
3)There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
While some local churches have issued official statements on this issue, it is not an issue that has been clearly defined by the entire Church.
THE THEOLOGY THAT ALLOWS MARRIED COUPLES TO USE BIRTH CONTROL ONLY WITH CONSULTATION WITH THEIR SPIRITUAL FATHER IS AS FOLLOWS:
The Christian concept of marriage should be re-examined. As described in the letters of St. Paul, marriage seeks to imitate the two primary attributes of God: His creative power and unbounded love. In Christian marriage, the two spouses receive a share in the divine creativity. True fatherhood was in God before it was in man, and our own human fatherhood is only a faint image of His creative fecundity. True motherhood must also be in God. After all, did He not make woman, and did He not give her motherlove?
Thus through human parenthood, the Maker of the universe allows us to share in His own creativeness, and matrimony has been elevated to the dignity of a spiritual collaboration with the Creator of mankind.
But marriage, according to this theory, has a more important quality. Christians are called upon to imitate the infinite love of God.
It would be a mistake, then, to subordinate creativity to love.
If we would balance one against the other, the fostering of affection between spouses takes precedence over the begetting of children, and the procreation of offspring is secondary to cultivation of love between the married partners.
Some may wonder how this agrees with the traditional claim that procreation is the primary end of marriage. They will not be surprised, however, after making a new distinction.
The generation of children is primary if we take marriage as a purely "natural" or "material" institution in which biological mating is necessary to bring human life into being.
But on the higher "spiritual level, as should obtain among Christians, carnal generation has been subordinated to the promotion of marital love
The prohibition of birth control assumes that the sexual function in human life must be limited to its function in nature, that of procreation. But it is the very character of human life that all animal functions are touched by freedom and released into more complex relationships.
This freedom is the basis of both creativity and sin. Freedom in relation to sex may occasion license, but it may also provide for a creative relation between the sex impulse and other more complex and refined spiritual impulses
Basically there is adequate theology to support married couples use of birth control under the advisement of the spiritual advisor. If this seems too ambiguous,consider this.
HOWEVER THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS CONCERNED WITH THE SPIRITUALITY OF EACH PERSON, NOT A GENERIC RULE THAT MAY FIT ONE PERSON AND NOT ANOTHER.ALL HAVE TO UNDERTAKE SPIRITUAL EXAMINATION RATHER THAN FOLLOW ONE PATENT RULE.
So, you take God so lightly that you think you can say what is a sin and what isn't?

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#488131 Nov 4, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Very interesting take on this incident.I have always been kind of puzzled by it. Thanx
Thanks,
I wondered on the whole,thing first time,I read it ..

But then Mary might have gone along to be an arbiter among them...since SHE,above all knew,He was about His,fathers,business ..

We won t know until we know ..however ..we,must remember Mary in that time was,still a JEWISH WOMAN. wise men listened to women in private ..Lol
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#488132 Nov 4, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
According to all theology ... Jesus did not CHOOSE to be a sacrifice. His father sent him to be crucified.
I wouldn't respect any father who sent his own son to be murdered ... especially when the father could see ahead of time that twenty centuries later, humans were still going to be fighting and killing each other over defending the dogmas in their own cults concerning who knows truth.
The theology is ludicrous!
And, Jesus came willingly to do the WILL of His Father.....

Apparently, you know NOTHING about the sacrifice of blood....

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#488133 Nov 4, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you admit that if you were starving, you would join me in eating the flesh of other dead humans???
Hardy party!
:)
No - I would probably die of starvation.

I'd really have to have a reason to eat another human being, considering that it is very much a health hazard to eat human flesh.

Granted those guys in the Ande's airplane crash managed to do it, to survive.....so I may take some inspiration from them. But right now - I'm sorry June, but you will have eat by yourself.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#488134 Nov 4, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your desire to believe that I am jealous of you???
Not at all.

But the way you are posting, sure seems to have those qualities.

You are teh one who seems to be "following" me and what I say, only to refute my posts.

If it isn't jealousy, then I am not sure what it is. Maybe more in line with being uninformed? I really don't know.

Oh well.
concerned in Brasil

Enilda, Canada

#488135 Nov 4, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry for being a dumb dumb. I hope to one day be an intellectual superstar like you. I wanna memorize all the Bible verses too, that way it'll be easier to worship the Books as an idol like the born agains. Lol
Ok, now I realize I'm stupid, but you say the Catholic Church added 7 Books to the Bible at the council of Trent. How come when the Bible was first published on October 22, 1452, it contained 72 Books?
The bottom line is: your forced Biblical ignorance fools nobody on this forum.
Do I need to post through you or to you?

Please refrain from straw man it is sad indeed for you to do so.

First the first Bible was not in 1452, in the 15 century you may say the first english translation was, by the way do you know which KJV you refer too, there was more than one, but you would have to have actually studied to know that and we know you have not. And do you know why it was not allowed before than, why it had to stay Latin if the RCC had its way???

My first Bible, my Mom's first bible both in German had 72 books, 66 were consider scripture the rest good for context, reference and context of the times.

My confirmation bible was presented to me in the late 70's

Rome at the council of Trent made the extra books scriptures.

BTW the way my Bible has Maps in them are they to be considered scripture.
concerned in Brasil

Enilda, Canada

#488136 Nov 4, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I realize again, that I'm not nearly as smart as you, but where is the verse where Our Lord gives us the list of Books for the Bible. I can't find it.
Bibleidolators is what you all are. The Bible is your idol.
That is because you know not of the Spirit.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#488137 Nov 4, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
According to all theology ... Jesus did not CHOOSE to be a sacrifice. His father sent him to be crucified.
I wouldn't respect any father who sent his own son to be murdered ... especially when the father could see ahead of time that twenty centuries later, humans were still going to be fighting and killing each other over defending the dogmas in their own cults concerning who knows truth.
The theology is ludicrous!
Not my will but Thine and that was the drinking of the SIN CUP..he would rather not do..he,was Han with human weakness ..whereas Divine and perfect ..taking on our VILE SIN was repulsive

Jesus was no forced to come ..
He chose to ...

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 Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 4 min Paul Porter1 263
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 17 min Barnsweb 84,302
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Tue Gee Tee 9,601
News Hispanics energized by Argentinian pope's first... Jul 27 tomin cali 1
News Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis po... (Mar '14) Jul 26 pazuzu 91
News Pope previews long-awaited climate letter Jul 25 pazuzu 14
News Poll: US views of Francis dim; a plunge in appr... Jul 24 Bug Spray 20
More from around the web