Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 667516 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: Jun 10

Location hidden

#504820 Jan 7, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what it means to you in English. You don't know what it means to others in English.
No matter which words in which book, we take our own meanings to words and infect the words with our own imaginations. And that is what has made and what makes the so-called holy books so dangerous.
Preachers might come up with the idea ... "GOD is offended, and those dirty evil sinners won't get away with offending MY GOD!"
edited for space
I don't believe what it means in English...I know what it means in English..there are some that will deny what it means because it will reveal them as liars....but they know exactly what it means.....a word cannot mean anything else but what it is defined as...
Example: idiot
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
[Middle English, ignorant person, from Old French idiote, from Latin idita, from Greek idits, private person, layman, from idios, own, private; see s(w)e- in Indo-European roots.]
1.(Psychiatry) a person with severe mental retardation
2. a foolish or senseless person
[C13: from Latin idi&#333;ta ignorant person, from Greek idi&#333;t&#275;s private person, one who lacks professional knowledge, ignoramus; see idio-]
1. an utterly stupid or foolish person.
2. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years and an intelligence quotient under 25.
[1250–1300; Middle English < Latin idi&#333;ta < Greek idi&#7763;t&#275;s private person, layman, person lacking skill =idi&#333;-(variant of idio- idio-)+-t&#275;s agent n. suffix]
a person of subnormal intelligenceidiot - a person of subnormal intelligence
changeling, cretin, half-wit, imbecile, moron, retard
mongoloid - a person suffering from Down syndrome (no longer used technically in this sense)
simpleton, simple - a person lacking intelligence or common sense
1. fool, jerk (slang, chiefly U.S. & Canad.), ass, plank (Brit. slang), charlie (Brit. informal), berk (Brit. slang), prick (derogatory slang), wally (slang), prat (slang), plonker (slang), moron, geek (slang), twit (informal, chiefly Brit.), chump, imbecile, cretin, oaf, simpleton, airhead (slang), dimwit (informal), dipstick (Brit. slang), dickhead (slang), gonzo (slang), schmuck (U.S. slang), dork (slang), nitwit (informal), blockhead, divvy (Brit. slang), pillock (Brit. slang), halfwit, nincompoop, dweeb (U.S. slang), putz (U.S. slang), eejit (Scot. & Irish), thicko (Brit. slang), dumb-ass (slang), gobshite (Irish taboo slang), dunderhead, numpty (Scot. informal), doofus (slang, chiefly U.S.), lamebrain (informal), fuckwit (taboo slang), mooncalf, nerd or nurd (slang), numbskull or numskull, galah (Austral. & N.Z. informal) I knew I'd been an idiot to stay there.
2. simpleton, cretin, halfwit the village idiot
stupid, simple, slow, thick, dull, naive, dim, dense, dumb (informal), deficient, crass, gullible, simple-minded, dozy (Brit. informal), witless, stolid, dopey (informal), moronic, obtuse, brainless, cretinous, unintelligent, half-witted, slow on the uptake (informal), braindead (informal), dumb-ass (slang), doltish, slow-witted, woodenheaded (informal) a bunch of idiot journalists
1. a foolish person. She was an idiot to give up such a good job.
2. a person with very low intelligence.
Gods R Delusions but Mine

Orlando, FL

#504821 Jan 7, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete deceiver or a complete idiot.
Born in Regina raised in Alberta I am tri-lingual and now you miss represent Canadian history you can't get one think right.
It was a historical step of making the great nation Canada is today it is what is called compromise.
From your link
English-speaking immigrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions although the populace resented their loss of liberties.
English speaking immigrants object of which many were English speaking Catholics.
Just another miss representation of the facts by you.
YOU can not be taken seriously you blatantly distort the truth in all your posts.
Christians like yourself are the best name-callers here.

You are also delusional to believe that the Indians are happy to have traded their culture for yours.

Lucky for you, the one true God is a moral, loving God and doesn't torture its creation for all eternity, unlike your angry, immoral, vengeful god.

How do you live with yourself worshipping such a tyrant?
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#504822 Jan 7, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
When Saint Paul wrote that, he was addressing men who were already married. Celibacy came at a later date by the Church. Again, you seem to think they rolled out 40 feet of Pauls scroll and said "hey look here in verse 1Tim 3:5, Paul says we have to be married to be Bishops!"
More than anything, the Apostles were establishing a Church with successors. Not a Bible.
42 Popes endorse torture and murder of non-Catholics via Papal bull, create a special branch of Priests call Jesuits to implement it, and even make an official manual on how to torture them, Rob millions of Billions and kill millions over 400+ years, and when Paul calls Bishops which in the Greek is the same as pope to be above reproach and you focus on one wife.

Who cares if they were married or not they were genocidal murders. And that alone debunks Romes claim to Apostolic succession and being the one true yadda yadda

Holy cow batman you stuck your head deeper in the sand than anyone in recorded history with that post.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504823 Jan 7, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Well once again you know nothing about nothing and continue to verify it.
The subject on which I was posting was that Christians perceived the Native-Indian beliefs as superstition, and their own beliefs as being based on truth.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

From the book … The Invasion Within … The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America by James Axtell.

From Canada to the Carolinas, the anti-Christian “evil one” held the benighted natives in thralldom, especially their shamans and conjurers, who were thought to be on speaking terms with him. By this token, of course, native religious customs could be seen by the Christian strangers as “only superstitions, which we hope by the grace of God to change into true Religion.”
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#504824 Jan 7, 2014
What would Fred Flintstone say about religion if he were alive today?

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504825 Jan 7, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete deceiver or a complete idiot.
Born in Regina raised in Alberta I am tri-lingual and now you miss represent Canadian history you can't get one think right.
It was a historical step of making the great nation Canada is today it is what is called compromise.
From your link
English-speaking immigrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions although the populace resented their loss of liberties.
English speaking immigrants object of which many were English speaking Catholics.
Just another miss representation of the facts by you.
YOU can not be taken seriously you blatantly distort the truth in all your posts.
History of the United States … by Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard. The Macmillan Company 1923.

To the American Protestants, the Quebec Act was the most offensive. The project they viewed not as an act of grace or of mercy but as a direct attempt to enlist French Canadians on the side of Great Britain. The British government did not grant religious toleration to Catholics either at home or in Ireland and the Americans could see no good motive in granting it in North America. The Act was also offensive because Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia had, under their charters, large claims in the territory thus annexed to Quebec.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504826 Jan 7, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
42 Popes endorse torture and murder of non-Catholics via Papal bull, create a special branch of Priests call Jesuits to implement it, and even make an official manual on how to torture them, Rob millions of Billions and kill millions over 400+ years, and when Paul calls Bishops which in the Greek is the same as pope to be above reproach and you focus on one wife.
Who cares if they were married or not they were genocidal murders. And that alone debunks Romes claim to Apostolic succession and being the one true yadda yadda
Holy cow batman you stuck your head deeper in the sand than anyone in recorded history with that post.
Your Protestantism is showing.

Martin Luther and followers, such as John Calvin were every bit as brutal as were the popes.

They ordained the death penalty for adultery (for instance) and for Homosexuality.

I suggest you learn to be fair when you point fingers at religious injustice.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504827 Jan 7, 2014
Jumper The Wise wrote:
What would Fred Flintstone say about religion if he were alive today?
He would keep on hiding in his cave!!!

At least if he wanted to carry on living a decent life.
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#504828 Jan 7, 2014
Gods R Delusions but Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians like yourself are the best name-callers here.
You are also delusional to believe that the Indians are happy to have traded their culture for yours.
Lucky for you, the one true God is a moral, loving God and doesn't torture its creation for all eternity, unlike your angry, immoral, vengeful god.
How do you live with yourself worshipping such a tyrant?
Well another not so bright one.

First I have never posted my view on hell in this thread and my view on hell IMO is biblical unlike the RCC's and they are not the same.

So you might want to ask the question before you stick your foot in your mouth by assuming you think you know something.

I never said nor do I believe they were happy to exchange their culture for any other nor have many Indian Groups in Canada given up their cultures as they still practice their cultural traditions today.

You BTW have no idea what my cultural background is nor what cultural traditions I practice now.

So in short you are the ignorant one as you have no clue what I believe.

Nor do I worship a tyrant as you put it, But the One true God however if rejected by you, in kind will reject you.

If you want to find out the views the vast majority of Christians have held concerning hell I suggest you go to www.thenarrowpath.com topical lectures, and download the MP3 teachings called three views of hell.

I let you guess which one I strongly lean towards.

Try being informed before you post then you won't look so foolish to those you post to.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504829 Jan 7, 2014
Gods R Delusions but Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
You are also delusional to believe that the Indians are happy to have traded their culture for yours.
A retired Protestant minister that had been a missionary to the Native Indians admitted to me that the Indians were "better off" before the invasion of the white men.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504830 Jan 7, 2014
One of my friends who is now diseased tried to convince me that the slaves had better lives in slavery in America that they had in their home-country of Africa.

Her family had owned slaves.

Justification is not uncommon among humans. I ought to know, as I also did some justifying in my life back in the day.

I try to be more honest with my self now, but it's not easy, as the self likes to fool the image in the mirror.
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#504831 Jan 7, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Protestantism is showing.
Martin Luther and followers, such as John Calvin were every bit as brutal as were the popes.
They ordained the death penalty for adultery (for instance) and for Homosexuality.
I suggest you learn to be fair when you point fingers at religious injustice.
Your Arrogance once again is showing June.

I never said they were prefect or did not commit atrocities. I am Student of Luther and know all about his executions of Anti-Baptists etc.

But the distinction here is this, RC Sect claims they are in of themselves the one True Church Lutherans do not, nor do most Evangelical Christian Sects.

Their brutality as you put it however comes no where close to the atrocities Rome has committed but that in no way justifies the atrocities they committed and they will all stand before God and give an account. Unlike you I don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water.
The reforms that Luther and Calvin did bring were wonderful early steps to return to the 1st century church and I choose to continue to make my life as close as possible to the early church as God reveals his truth through his word, I want my life lived out like a true disciple of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.

Do not make the mistake with me that I am a follower of any Man that would be a grave mistake on your part. I have no allegiance to any Christian Sect only King Jesus

You like putting people in containers June, you like to Judge on little or no information.
You would do well to get rid of this bad habit.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504832 Jan 7, 2014
The Protestants were the first religious Christians to come to America, and they were intent on keeping the Catholics out of the country as long as possible.

The Protestants had their own agenda, which was the same as the Catholic agenda.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>

From the book,“The Papal Conspiracy Exposed, and Protestantism Defended,” by Rev. Edward Beecher, published in 1855, comes the following.

At this time we aim; because it is our firm conviction that we, as a Protestant nation, have received our principles from God, and that he has assigned to us the sublime mission and the glorious destiny of making them universal.
Liam

Chicago, IL

#504833 Jan 7, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
42 Popes endorse torture and murder of non-Catholics via Papal bull, create a special branch of Priests call Jesuits to implement it, and even make an official manual on how to torture them, Rob millions of Billions and kill millions over 400+ years, and when Paul calls Bishops which in the Greek is the same as pope to be above reproach and you focus on one wife.
Who cares if they were married or not they were genocidal murders. And that alone debunks Romes claim to Apostolic succession and being the one true yadda yadda
Holy cow batman you stuck your head deeper in the sand than anyone in recorded history with that post.
I'm not sure why you have to lie. Actually, I know why you have to lie. You don't have a case if you don't.
Provide a verifiable link where a 'normal person' says 42 Popes endorsed murder and torture.

Church murdered millions?? Come on prophet.
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#504834 Jan 7, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject on which I was posting was that Christians perceived the Native-Indian beliefs as superstition, and their own beliefs as being based on truth.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
From the book … The Invasion Within … The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America by James Axtell.
From Canada to the Carolinas, the anti-Christian “evil one” held the benighted natives in thralldom, especially their shamans and conjurers, who were thought to be on speaking terms with him. By this token, of course, native religious customs could be seen by the Christian strangers as “only superstitions, which we hope by the grace of God to change into true Religion.”
Their Beliefs were and are superstition that is fact and verifiable.

You were posting to a link from wiki and made false comments about it.

If you want a do over fine but you don't fool me with this end around back track post.

When you are wrong best just to admit it instead of digging the hole deeper.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504835 Jan 7, 2014
From the book,“The Papal Conspiracy Exposed, and Protestantism Defended,” by Rev. Edward Beecher, published in 1855, comes the following……

From the words of Pope Innocent VIII

We give you power to have the crusade preached up by fit men; to grant that such persons as shall enter on the crusade and fight against these same heretics, and shall contribute to it, may gain plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins once in their life, and also at their death; to command, in virtue of their holy obedience, and under penalty of excommunication, all preachers of God’s word to animate and incite the same believers to exterminate the pestilence, without sparing, by force and arms.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504836 Jan 7, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you have to lie. Actually, I know why you have to lie. You don't have a case if you don't.
Provide a verifiable link where a 'normal person' says 42 Popes endorsed murder and torture.
Church murdered millions?? Come on prophet.
He lies for the same reason you lie. To defend his personalized religious cult.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#504837 Jan 7, 2014
From the book … The Invasion Within … The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America by James Axtell.

But one man’s superstition is another man’s religion, as a glance at any dictionary will quickly reveal. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word superstition derives from the Latin superstitio,“soothsaying,” by the way of Old French and Middle English. By the early decades of the sixteenth century it had come to mean “irrational religious belief or practice…founded on fear or ignorance,” with the connotation that the religion was “false, pagan, or idolatrous.”
Liam

Chicago, IL

#504838 Jan 7, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
42 Popes endorse torture and murder of non-Catholics via Papal bull, create a special branch of Priests call Jesuits to implement it, and even make an official manual on how to torture them, Rob millions of Billions and kill millions over 400+ years, and when Paul calls Bishops which in the Greek is the same as pope to be above reproach and you focus on one wife.
Who cares if they were married or not they were genocidal murders. And that alone debunks Romes claim to Apostolic succession and being the one true yadda yadda
Holy cow batman you stuck your head deeper in the sand than anyone in recorded history with that post.
Murdered billions and millions and billions...genocidal murderers! Lol people like you boggle my mind.

Anywho, The first Christians were converts. They were already married. Paul says the Bishops shouldn't be "recent converts", but obviously they were Jewish men who converted and became followers of Christ. This would mean they were likely married and Paul would never require them to leave their wives to become Bishops. Besides, the job of Bishop back then could allow for a man to fulfill both their marital vows and Priestly vows. As the Church expanded, so did the duties of the Bishop. It became too difficult for a man to fulfill both duties. Also, the title of Bishop meant certain death. Especially in the yrs after Paul completed his letters. Therefore, it was more dutiful for a man to forgo the marital life and instead be married to the Church, since he would likely leave behind a widow one day.

See, this is how reason and logic look when you approach sacred scripture without forceful ignorance.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#504839 Jan 7, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have is incurable....this is a question:Where are you getting info that Christ did not know or speak Greek!!!!!! It is not a statement!!!!!
What is it that I have that YOU think is incurable?
I just showed you that the writings prove that he spoke Aramaic with a direct quote. Show me a direct Greek quote from Jesus in your accepted writings.
You cant, so you do what you always do when you make a foolish remark without even thinking...deflect and defame the other poster.
I have no doubt that any person in that time and location wasn't at least capable of being bilingual or multilingual, but your writings do NOT bear that out as absolute fact...or you would provide a direct quote to prove it.
So I repeat- Show me a direct Greek quote from Jesus in your accepted writings.

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... 3 min Demon Finder 197
News Dr Zakir Naik invites Pope Benedict XVI for ope... (Oct '06) Sat Serah 14,364
News 7 reasons why Friday the 13th is considered an ... Jan 14 True Christian wi... 3
News Women should breastfeed in church, Pope Francis... Jan 11 Jeremy 3
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory (Jul '15) Dec 30 Dogen 508
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Dec 20 Married in 10,385
News Preview: The Pope's Choir Dec 20 KenJr26 1
More from around the web