Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 646706 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: Jul 10

Location hidden

#488784 Nov 6, 2013
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
•1. Why does it condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
•2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
•3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
•4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
•5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
•6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
•7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
•8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
•9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
•10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
•11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
•12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
•13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
•14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#488785 Nov 6, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the Jew wait until he was 16 to get circumcised? I would hope not. Ouch!
His parents brought him before God as an infant. Christians do the same like Christ commanded, without the snip snip.
Did a Jew command Catholics, and Protestants to be circumcised???

If so, I've never known a Rabbi who sticks his nose into Catholic and Protestant churches to command them to be circumcised.

It seems that you are stretching your imaginary story along with imaginary foreskins.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#488786 Nov 6, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the Jew wait until he was 16 to get circumcised? I would hope not. Ouch!
His parents brought him before God as an infant. Christians do the same like Christ commanded, without the snip snip.
Infants were circumcised on the eighth day, the reason for waiting eight days is because God knew that the clotting process didn't become functional until that time.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#488787 Nov 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again ... indicating that YOU know wisdom when you spot it!
How funny!
What I stated is correct. It is not my fault you can't see it for what it is...it is yours...own it.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#488788 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
The Catholics authorized the new testament, so it has to be THEIR book!

I suggest the Protestants had no right to horn in on a Catholic book.

Horny old Martin Luther should have written his own bible, while he was marrying his nun and starting a new religion with new messages he supposedly received from Jehovah ... the one Abrahamic God.

Dogma theft was a common occurrence that ought to have been against the law.

But then, had that occurred ... religion would have had to start each time again from "scratch."

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#488789 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> Infants were circumcised on the eighth day, the reason for waiting eight days is because God knew that the clotting process didn't become functional until that time.
Hahahahahaha

God could have "clotted" the blood his self ... unless he was useless ... "as always."

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#488790 Nov 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a fibber.
The Catholics wrote the new testament. Protestants had NO part in it whatsoever, and we all KNOW the story that unless people are baptized into the Catholic faith, they can't go to Christian heaven. Of the Abrahamic religion ... THAT excludes Protestants AND Jews AND Muslims.
I suggest you get your stories straight!
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith
I don't see any books the Catholic wrote, except their own version of the bible, which is the Catholic bible what else. The Apostles wrote the New Testament and the Catholic Church also didn't write the Old Testament either. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.htm...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#488791 Nov 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholics authorized the new testament, so it has to be THEIR book!
I suggest the Protestants had no right to horn in on a Catholic book.
Horny old Martin Luther should have written his own bible, while he was marrying his nun and starting a new religion with new messages he supposedly received from Jehovah ... the one Abrahamic God.
Dogma theft was a common occurrence that ought to have been against the law.
But then, had that occurred ... religion would have had to start each time again from "scratch."
The Catholics did what God instructed them to do. Wrong it belongs to the people God created, after all he is the author and he also wrote it through divine intervention through the people he chose to write for him, which makes it divinely inspired.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#488792 Nov 6, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I stated is correct. It is not my fault you can't see it for what it is...it is yours...own it.
Your innuendos always hints at you KNOWING some ancient wisdom as fact ... and I don't buy your nonsense ... any more than you believe I have wisdom in my possession.

You KNOW you don't believe that I am at all wise ... and I don't blame you ... as I also know that I am NOT at all wise.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#488793 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> I don't see any books the Catholic wrote, except their own version of the bible,
Hahahahahaha

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#488794 Nov 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a fibber.
The Catholics wrote the new testament. Protestants had NO part in it whatsoever, and we all KNOW the story that unless people are baptized into the Catholic faith, they can't go to Christian heaven. Of the Abrahamic religion ... THAT excludes Protestants AND Jews AND Muslims.
I suggest you get your stories straight!
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith
I wish they would share that time travel technology with us.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#488795 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> The Catholics did what God instructed them to do.....
So you believe that Paul and Constantine are Gods.

OK

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#488796 Nov 6, 2013
One thing is certain. The Protestants did NOT write the new testament.

They didn't exist until the sixteenth century.

I suggest that Martin Luther should have written his own bible, instead of having sex with his newly wed ex-nun that he TOOK for a wife.

:)

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#488797 Nov 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if we condemn all others and our selves to start with ... that would be on the right track of wisdom ... as there would BE no favorites.
I'll start with the premise that all people are completely evil and wicked.
Now it's your turn ... IF of course you "want" to play the game.
Do you believe any certain person should be left out of that picture???
:)
I am sorry. I do not perceive the world is such a disparaged circumstance as "completely evil and wicked". That is what narcissistic religionists cults would demand and expect of it's subjugates...and is not acceptable to any rational individual or society.
Liam

Garden City, MI

#488798 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
•1. Why does it condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
•2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
•3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
•4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
•5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
•6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
•7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
•8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
•9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
•10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
•11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
•12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
•13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
•14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Not everything about Christianity is explicitly found in the Books. Not everything Jesus said and did was put down in writing. He left us with a Church not a Book.
Didn't you ever stop and consider what the Bible is and where it came from?
The Apostle Thomas went to India and Andrew to Greece. They did not carry in their hands the writings of Paul or any other Apostle. A historic study of what these men set up in India and Greece will reveal a hierarchy; a sacramental priesthood that was united under one faith and one Bishop. Its the Church of Christ. Universal (Catholic) Church of Christ.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#488799 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
•1. Why does it condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
•2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
•3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
•4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
•5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
•6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
•7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
•8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
•9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
•10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
•11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
•12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
•13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
•14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Asking these types of questions, indicate that you don't "know" all there is to know of your religion, thus, to admit through honesty that your belief is more correct than another would be a false conclusion.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#488800 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> Infants were circumcised on the eighth day, the reason for waiting eight days is because God knew that the clotting process didn't become functional until that time.
How is it that - you know what "God" knows?

How did this information come to you?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#488801 Nov 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> The Catholics did what God instructed them to do. Wrong it belongs to the people God created, after all he is the author and he also wrote it through divine intervention through the people he chose to write for him, which makes it divinely inspired.
Please post where "God" specifically lists and states which books are "of His divine intervention" and which are not?

Why do you think fallible men could define an infallible being?

I don't believe you have done enough research to make these claims as "True".
Husker Du

Falls City, NE

#488802 Nov 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem it may have been confusing .
I WAS as a CATHOLIC baptized as a baby .
Then again about 10 years,ago after professing..testifying my.belief ..
Again the BAPTIST church ..full emersiin...
Made me understand the act of BAPTISM itself was Not how,I came to salvation ..But by my faith ..through grace ..
Jesus,said SO.many times,..thy FAITH.has,saved thee, healed th ed, healed by child fro. Miles away ..healed the servant ...FAITH..
You didn't need to be baptized again. Don't you think Christ knows you were baptized? Once is enough. If you had to be baptized again, then you are saying Christ isn't all knowing.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#488803 Nov 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I agree that the word evil should be removed from language by lack of use. But why were you puffing up the poster "Truth" when the word evil was being used as a word worthy of use BY the poster "Truth?"
And as for the terms good and bad ... what is perceived as good to one person is perceived as bad to another.
For instance ... burning people as heretics was and still is by some people perceived as good ... while to the people being burned, that is very bad in deed!
Those who cut and dry morals as being set in stone, make a big mistake ... as morals are perceived as good by some people and bad by others. And in religion it's even worse ... as some people perceive their selves as holy and wise ... and others as dumb and evil.
That whole scenario is nothing more than the effects of bigoted acculturation(s).
Every individual has the capability of knowing and understanding the basics of good and bad within themselves. It is not complicated at all. One does have to evaluate with reason rather than emotion for proper conclusion.

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) 9 hr Mr Sir 10,166
News Pope says Church should ask forgiveness from ga... Mon South Knox Hombre 2
News Nation-Now 57 mins ago 10:35 a.m.Pope Francis s... Mon Rev Cash Dollar 1
News John Paul II College of Davao (Dec '07) Jun 20 tine 673
News Milwaukee Rising: Looking for the city's most u... Jun 20 Tom 2
News Pope names new papal nuncio to the United States Jun 1 Michael 7
News Pope's zero tolerance for pedophiles faces test... (Mar '15) May '16 Gods r Delusions ... 4
More from around the web