Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 685756 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.

Clay

Garden City, MI

#432617 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
At the start of the Catholic religion, each realm had bishops that ruled. The word bishop MEANS pope. For goodness sakes, it was not until the 12th century that the pope of Rome became the head bishop of the Catholic church.
If you don't see the lies, it's because you don't WANT to see them.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
From the book,“The Papal Conspiracy Exposed, and Protestantism Defended,” by Rev. Edward Beecher, published in 1855, comes the following……
The pope, moreover, now claims supremacy on the ground of the assumed fact that Peter was appointed the prince of apostles and the head and ruler of the church. We can trace this claim also back to a time in which those who are now absurdly called the early Popes of Rome were utterly ignorant of this doctrine and made no such claim; and we can show how after four or five centuries the idea was introduced and how it was made to triumph by falsehood and lies.
"The Papal Conspiracy exposed and Protestantism Defended" by Ed Beecher in 1855???

That's all you got? a book written by some dude who declared himself a pastor, and undid what the Apostles taught??

The thought of the slander and deception that guy must use in his book gives me the chills. There is no argument against Catholicism unless you use deception. I guarantee it.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#432618 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
The term Peter and the "rock" etc., stemmed from Paganism. Later the Catholics took the term and created a Jewish character that they claimed became the first pope.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>
The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred objects … by Barbara G. Walker.
Perron
The perron or “Big Peter” was a medieval version of the phallic pillars called petra, Pater, or Peter throughout the ancient Roman empire. Tacitus called them “pillars of Hercules,” but the pinecone ornamentation on the top indicates a closer connection with the cults of Dionysus or Bacchus Liber, who was also called Liber Pater, and whose phallic scepter or thyrsus was tipped with a pinecone.
Such stone pillars represented the phallic spirit of a god for many thousands of years. The pagan concept to the petra combined “father” and “rock,” in the same manner as the biblical description of a paternal God as “the Rock that begat thee”(Deuteronomy 32:18). The name of Peter or “Rock” was allegedly bestowed by Jesus on a disciple named Simon, in order that the latter might father a church in Rome, where—strangely enough—the patriarchal petra had been worshiped on Vatican Hill as a father-rock since Etruscan times. This particular biblical myth was purely fictional, however, having been invented about the third century A.D. and inserted into the Gospel of Mathew to uphold Rome’s claim to primacy over the Byzantine see.(1)
In any event, thyrsus-shaped phallic pillars were erected in almost every Romanized town thoughout Europe, and many survived into medieval times. They also appeared on coins. Christian authorities had no particular objection to phallic symbols as long as they were not too explicit. Since the perrons were usually found in or near a church built over an ancient shrine or pilgrimage center, most of them were left in place and sketchily Christianized by the addition of a small cross on top.
1. Reinach, 240.
2. d’Alviella, 103-117

There is some truth in what you say here. But it wasnt the apostle Peter, who never even went to Rome, rather Simon Peter Magus.

The obelisk is mentioned in the OT as a pagan idol condemned by God.

The Roman religion is not Christian as they claim. The Bible does not support their sun worship religion.

The Roman Harlot
http://youtu.be/toBOML5W4uQ
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#432619 Apr 14, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do not believe the Biblical account of Noah and Jonah how do you decide what to believe in the Bible? By your own knowledge and wisdom? By instruction of your pope perhaps? Have you ever read this verse..........Jeremiah 32:27, "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?"
You speak like the serpent in Genesis 3:1-3. Wait, you probably don't believe this Biblical account either.
Genesis 3:1-3, 1 " Now the serpent said to the woman,“Did God really say,‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent,“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say,‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Did God part the Red Sea? Did Jesus heal the sick and raise the dead? Do you believe Jesus was RAISED from the dead? How do you decide what to believe? When you do not believe the Bible you call God a liar. The Bible is God's word to us.
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know the Bible is Gods word?
Could you provide Book, Chapter and verse where God tells us if 39, 66, or 73 Books are His word?
Could you provide Book, Chapter and Verse where Christ tells us we should follow 39, 66 or 73 Books as the sole authority on His teachings.
The cold truth sir, is Our Lord nor His Apostle ever commanded a Christian set of Books be created. Given what happened to Christians and their scriptures during the persecution, its a miracle we have ANY writings. It is by the grace of the Holy Spirit that Pauls letters and Matthews memoirs survived through this and we have the written word to go along with the oral and sacred tradition passed down by the Apostles. The Mass and Eucharist. If your brain could comprehend anything outside of what you conjure up from scriptures, you'd tremble in fear knowing you make fun of something that came directly from Jesus Christ.
If we were to throw out the book of John you and your kind would have no basis for the pathetic theology of transubstantiation and your entire faith would fall apart at the seams. You believe the Bible when you think it describes Jesus as a cracker but nothing more. You are not a Christian in the remotest sense of the word. You nothing but a lost human being following the most lost of them all.....your pope and his eight little cardinals.
Clay

Garden City, MI

#432621 Apr 14, 2013
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do not believe the Biblical account of Noah and Jonah how do you decide what to believe in the Bible? By your own knowledge and wisdom? By instruction of your pope perhaps? Have you ever read this verse..........Jeremiah 32:27, "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?"
You speak like the serpent in Genesis 3:1-3. Wait, you probably don't believe this Biblical account either.
Genesis 3:1-3, 1 " Now the serpent said to the woman,“Did God really say,‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent,“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say,‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Did God part the Red Sea? Did Jesus heal the sick and raise the dead? Do you believe Jesus was RAISED from the dead? How do you decide what to believe? When you do not believe the Bible you call God a liar. The Bible is God's word to us.
<quoted text>
If we were to throw out the book of John you and your kind would have no basis for the pathetic theology of transubstantiation and your entire faith would fall apart at the seams. You believe the Bible when you think it describes Jesus as a cracker but nothing more. You are not a Christian in the remotest sense of the word. You nothing but a lost human being following the most lost of them all.....your pope and his eight little cardinals.
You think its just the book of John that speaks of the Eucharist? How about 2Corinthians 11: 23 or Luke 24:13-35? And countless other references in Revelation (supper of the Lamb) Who's the Lamb? Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God.

Even if the Gospel of John didn't survive, we still have the oral teachings of the Apostles which are equally the 'word of God' and equally sacred. And like the written words, were carried and protected by the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 yrs.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432622 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
I wonder how many Catholic peasants starved to death, while these popes reaped their rewards by preaching lies?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>
The Incredible Book of Vatican Facts and Papal Curiosities … A treasury of Trivia, by Nino Lo Bello~ Published 1998.
Which pope was an automobile buff?
Pius XI (1922—1939) kept a fleet of 16 cars in the Vatican garage. Three of these were convertibles.
a life that gives nothing to the church means nothing to the church.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#432623 Apr 14, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, what an important and wonderful gospel reading today (John 21:1-19). I wonder how many here truly understand its implications....
You probably don't understand it at all.

Read John 21:15, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love(AGAPE, to love dearly) me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love(PHILEO, to approve of) you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

Jesus asks Peter do you LOVE...(agape) me.(Jesus asked Peter do you love me dearly)

Peter responds, yes Lord I LOVE (phileo) you.(Peter responds I approve of you Lord)

This question from Jesus to Peter happens again in John 21:16.

Two times this question comes from Jesus to Peter and two times Peter never says he LOVES (agape) Jesus. He tells Jesus he considers him his buddy and he approves of Jesus but NEVER tells Jesus he loves (agape) him.

In John 21:17 the conversation goes like this......He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love(phileo) me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love(phileo) you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Finally Jesus says.....yes Peter, I know you approve of me and Peter agrees....yes Lord I approve of you.

Peter was grieved because he COULD NOT and DID NOT tell Jesus he loved (agape) him. Peter denies Jesus 3 times prior to Jesus crucifixion and ironically he denies Jesus 3 times again.

Jesus loved Peter.....agape Strong #25
Peter loved Jesus.....phileo Strong #5368

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432624 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark,your scaring all the Catholics here,not nice telling them the truth,they don't like it.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#432625 Apr 14, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You think its just the book of John that speaks of the Eucharist? How about 2Corinthians 11: 23 or Luke 24:13-35? And countless other references in Revelation (supper of the Lamb) Who's the Lamb? Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God.
Even if the Gospel of John didn't survive, we still have the oral teachings of the Apostles which are equally the 'word of God' and equally sacred. And like the written words, were carried and protected by the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 yrs.
Hey stupid. Where else does Jesus tell anyone to eat his flesh and drink his blood. No place. Read John 6:53-58. You believe this is literal but Jesus tells you later in John 6:63 it was not literal but symbolic, "The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

The Lord's Supper is SYMBOLISM......NEVER LITERAL. Do you understand now?
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Canada

#432626 Apr 14, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Papal Conspiracy exposed and Protestantism Defended" by Ed Beecher in 1855???
That's all you got? a book written by some dude who declared himself a pastor, and undid what the Apostles taught??
The thought of the slander and deception that guy must use in his book gives me the chills. There is no argument against Catholicism unless you use deception. I guarantee it.
Had Jesus lived ... as a faithful Jew, he would not have stated "On this rock, build your church." He would have stated "On this rock build your Synagogue."

The Catholics didn't compile their data in the new testament until the fourth century ... long after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.

My guess is, it was all a flamboyant story created to start a new religion.

Had Jesus died on the cross for any religion, it would have been his own, and his last words would have been to the Jews ... in the essence of ... "Be faithful ... do not start any new religions, or believe in those who want to lead you from the path of Judaism. They will deceive you by telling you that I was a traitor to Judaism, which was not, and never will be based on truth."

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432627 Apr 14, 2013
latest stats on Catholics in the world.17.18% 1,181,368,942
and dropping.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432628 Apr 14, 2013
going to pogo play some pool or chess.
Clay

Garden City, MI

#432629 Apr 14, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably don't understand it at all.
Read John 21:15, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love(AGAPE, to love dearly) me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love(PHILEO, to approve of) you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
Jesus asks Peter do you LOVE...(agape) me.(Jesus asked Peter do you love me dearly)
Peter responds, yes Lord I LOVE (phileo) you.(Peter responds I approve of you Lord)
This question from Jesus to Peter happens again in John 21:16.
Two times this question comes from Jesus to Peter and two times Peter never says he LOVES (agape) Jesus. He tells Jesus he considers him his buddy and he approves of Jesus but NEVER tells Jesus he loves (agape) him.
In John 21:17 the conversation goes like this......He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love(phileo) me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love(phileo) you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Finally Jesus says.....yes Peter, I know you approve of me and Peter agrees....yes Lord I approve of you.
Peter was grieved because he COULD NOT and DID NOT tell Jesus he loved (agape) him. Peter denies Jesus 3 times prior to Jesus crucifixion and ironically he denies Jesus 3 times again.
Jesus loved Peter.....agape Strong #25
Peter loved Jesus.....phileo Strong #5368
I swear you guys sliced and diced, shaped and formed every possibly Bible verse.
Why don't you try reading what the Disciples of the Apostles had to say about what they were taught???

The answer of course is, your man made Christianity would look very different, and Catholicsm would look the same. That's why you guys ignore it all. you'd be forced to give up your career and wage. You'd make many people upset in your family too. I think that's why you guys plug your ears and march on embracing ignorance. Its the only way your theology can function, Old G..

Could you provide Book, Chapter and Verse where Christ instructs says 39, 66 or 73 Books are the Word of God?
Clay

Garden City, MI

#432630 Apr 14, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey stupid. Where else does Jesus tell anyone to eat his flesh and drink his blood. No place. Read John 6:53-58. You believe this is literal but Jesus tells you later in John 6:63 it was not literal but symbolic, "The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
The Lord's Supper is SYMBOLISM......NEVER LITERAL. Do you understand now?
No I don't understand. The Disciples of the Apostles clarify what they were taught about the Bread and Wine. I read it.
For some reason, you undid what the Apostles taught them. I'm not certain why you'd think you had the authority to do such a thing. Judging from the way you speak, you're obviously not a follower of Jesus Christ, so maybe that explains it.
run along now, you been exposed to be a false teacher.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Canada

#432631 Apr 14, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
June VanDerMark,your scaring all the Catholics here,not nice telling them the truth,they don't like it.
When I first went on a Catholic forum in 2006, I was called every vile name in the "book" ... such as witch, heretic, demon, devil, spawn of the devil, Satan in the flesh, amoral, immoral, cursed, lost, etc. As usual, they saved all the nice stuff from the same book, such as holy servants of god, moral, righteous, and the big one ... SAVED ... for their selves.

Now, as you can see, these Catholics are being very polite. I have no complaints anyway and never did, as I expect rebuttal when I criticize what people hold most dear to their selves.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Canada

#432632 Apr 14, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
latest stats on Catholics in the world.17.18% 1,181,368,942
and dropping.
When a Catholic is baptized, the hierarchy doesn't take into account that later those ones that were baptized leave the church, so the real count is probably a lot less.

Many are now leaving to join up with the new overhauled versions of Paganism ... where it is taught that the goddess loves everybody.

Ya can't blame the Christians for flocking to this new promise of a goddess that doesn't judge anyone and simply holds the hands of the believers, even when they land in prison. That cranky old god worshipped by the Jews (and then the Christians) is no fun at all. He's "old hat."

It's a new day, and new religions with new promises are bound to appear.

:)
RogerThat

AOL

#432633 Apr 14, 2013
.

AMERICA'S "WICKED" MINISTERS ----- Matthew 24

http://youtu.be/FCQcNETFto0

.
Pad

Fishers, IN

#432634 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
Imagine all the countless ignorant men muddling about with words, all claiming to know truth.
Religion has quite the history.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>
From the book “Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
Septuagint (the seventy). The Septuagint or Greek version of the Old Testament appears at the present day in four principal editions:--1. Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis, A.D. 1514—1517. 2. The Aldine Edition, Venice A.D. 1518. 3. The Roman Edition, edited under Pope Sixtus V., A.D. 1587. 4. Fac-simile Edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, by H. H. Baber, A. D. 1816.
June,tired of your forum of gays and women being bullied by the RCC?Or maybe you want to bring that subject matter to this forum?

Being a Feminist and a pro gay person does not make you the most open-minded person alive,it is obvious from your many posts in that forum ,you are basically a liberal anti-religious person.

Actually it is quite clear that you view religion as a chauvinistic dynasty of sorts,and that believing in God is a male foisted ideology on the human race.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#432636 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in you image of a god, and I perceive that the whole theology is silly.
That was my point.
You do not know my image of God. Neither do you know my theology. Also there are many many Christian theologies to explore before you can cast judgment on all of them.
You have the philosophers to study as well. Truthfullu I wish you well whatever your beliefs.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#432637 Apr 14, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Had Jesus lived ... as a faithful Jew, he would not have stated "On this rock, build your church." He would have stated "On this rock build your Synagogue."
The Catholics didn't compile their data in the new testament until the fourth century ... long after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.
My guess is, it was all a flamboyant story created to start a new religion.
Had Jesus died on the cross for any religion, it would have been his own, and his last words would have been to the Jews ... in the essence of ... "Be faithful ... do not start any new religions, or believe in those who want to lead you from the path of Judaism. They will deceive you by telling you that I was a traitor to Judaism, which was not, and never will be based on truth."
June Sorry but this is humorous. Jesus comes. Judaism is already established. He is tortured and suffers on the Cross as a statement of "keep going to the Synagogue boys and be a good Jew"
Kind of overkill.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#432638 Apr 14, 2013
s I answer things you post, please understand that there is no disrespect whatever intended.I have a close friend, a woman, whose beliefs are close to what you describe here.

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 6 min Rose_NoHo 567
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 7 min Nina 518,545
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 37 min 15th Dalai Lama 78,711
News US Jewish criticism of Trump expands to some su... 1 hr youll shoot your ... 44
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 32,457
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr PattyM 8,419
News Is healthcare a Jewish value? NEW 2 hr Eric 49
More from around the web