Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 20 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.

guest

United States

#396401 Oct 14, 2012
and I forgot to add that the Apocryphal books were originally written in Greek.

The Jews wrote in their own language. Hebrew. Hence: Hebrew Scriptures.
Fr Robert Dye

Subiaco, AR

#396402 Oct 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
-
<quoted text>
-
-
The Catholic belief that books were REMOVED from the Hebrew Canon of Scripture are just another lie of the Catholic Church.
-
The books you are referencing were ADDED by the Catholic Church to the HEBREW Bible ...NOT REMOVED by the Protestants!
-
How do we know this FOR A CERTAINTY? The Apocryphal Books were never part of the Hebrew Biblical Canon. The Jewish scriptures were completed 400 to 300 B.C.E. And if anyone would know what was part of the Hebrew Scriptures, I think it would be the Jews!
.
Except ...these texts were ALL part of the Septuagint.
.
(From Catholic.com , so that you will be able to assume you can dismiss it out of hand:)
.
If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
.
For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.
.
By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.
.
But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.
.
Either way,
*****it doesn’t matter,****
because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if
.
*****the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek.*****
.
The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.
.
(endquote)
And once the importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated, as the Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers to quote from it more than any other translation, your argument is broken.
.
Rob
ReginaM

Irvington, NJ

#396403 Oct 14, 2012
guest wrote:
and I forgot to add that the Apocryphal books were originally written in Greek.
The Jews wrote in their own language. Hebrew. Hence: Hebrew Scriptures.
"...the Jews rejected Christ and the Christian Scriptures. What the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of who the Messiah was (namely, Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings.

Thus, if a Protestant chooses to reject the Septuagint canon because the Jews did so, why is he not rejecting Christ and the New Testament? The Jews did not reject these seven books – or the Septuagint as a whole – for roughly 250 years. From the completion of the Septuagint to the school of Jamnia a large group of Greek speaking Jews were happy to use the Septuagint. This group of Jews included Jesus and His disciples."
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologet...
ReginaM

Irvington, NJ

#396404 Oct 14, 2012
SEPTUAGINT QUOTES
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.h...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#396405 Oct 14, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>O.K. You can put him down now.:O
You don't think I hurt him, do you?

;o)

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#396406 Oct 14, 2012
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter "Satan" in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship.

1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#396407 Oct 14, 2012
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically, you believe there is no salvation outside your church. In fact, you publicly declared "all Roman Catholics will wake up in hell someday alongside your pope"
Since you are the new authority that God has called....tell us prophet, who is speaking the truth? You, Preston, Confrint,7th or Fr. Dye??(even thou Fr. Dye does not claim to be theee authority on sacred scripture, but I put his name in there to balance it out.lol)
Clay, you are telling lies again. I never stated what you have posted. Roman Catholicism offers a "plan of salvation" based on the individual Roman Catholic's merits, or works.

The Council of Trent, in countering the Protestant teaching that we are saved by grace apart from works, made the following very clear proclamations:

Lie #1: If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA

Notice the phrase "the cause of its increase." The infallible council has proclaimed that it is our good works that causes justification to increase.

Lie #2: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA

Again, it is clear that Rome does not subscribe to salvation by "faith alone."

Lie #3: If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA
With this canon, Rome has decreed that our salvation is due to our own merits.

Lie #4: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA

Interestingly, "the gospel" could accurately be defined as, "confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, and it is this confidence alone that justifies us." Yet Rome emphatically anathematizes anyone who holds to that definition.

This is Jesus talking.....you remember Jesus don't you?

John 3:3, "Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:7, ""Do not marvel that I said to you,'You must be born again.'"

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#396408 Oct 14, 2012
400
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ...
.
Strictly speaking, we DO "pray to" saints ...
.
... but you have to be clear what the word "pray" can mean.
.
In the case of "praying to" a saint, it is a very archaic meaning, used almost exclusively by Catholics, nowadays.
.
It means "to ask."
.
If you have ever been to a performance of the Mikado, or heard a recording, you should have heard it:
.
"Enter Nanki-Poo in great excitement. He carries a native guitar on his back and a bundle of ballads in his hand.
.
Nanki-Poo:
Gentlemen, I pray you tell me
Where a gentle maiden dwelleth,
Named Yum-Yum, the ward of Ko-Ko?
In pity speak, oh speak I pray you!"
.
You might also catch this in any cartoon set in Olde England, where you are supposed to know it is Olde England, because everyone says "prithee" a lt.
.
Bugs Bunny, speaking to Sheriff of Nottingham: "Prithee tell me, who liveth in yon castle?"
.
What he's actually supposed to be saying is, "I ask you to tell me: who lives in that castle?"
.
So the idea of "praying to" a saint, and there is really only one thing that (according to Catholic Teaching) would ever be appropriate to ask of a saint: intercessory prayer. We ask them to pray with us, but in their case, before the Throne of God, where we too hope to pray one day.
.
Rob
Which Bible are you reading that teaches you to pray to saints?? Can you show me any scripture in the NABre that refers to saints????

Mine, the KJV, does not teach me to pray to saints...it says: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#396409 Oct 14, 2012
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
"...the Jews rejected Christ and the Christian Scriptures. What the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of who the Messiah was (namely, Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings.
Thus, if a Protestant chooses to reject the Septuagint canon because the Jews did so, why is he not rejecting Christ and the New Testament? The Jews did not reject these seven books – or the Septuagint as a whole – for roughly 250 years. From the completion of the Septuagint to the school of Jamnia a large group of Greek speaking Jews were happy to use the Septuagint. This group of Jews included Jesus and His disciples."
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologet...
How many of the Apostles were Roman Catholics? "0%"
LOL Now how many were Jews? "100%" Not only did your kind steal Christianity from the Jews you corrupted it to the core. You also moved the capital of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome. You and your kind are actually nothing more than thieves.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? LOL
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#396410 Oct 14, 2012
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Awe crap! the militant man 'called by God' to preach the gospel is on here now! Where is Preston to fight fire with fire?
You two should get your story straight on how humans are 'saved' before you unite to attack Catholics!!
Clay, you are not "Catholic". You and your kind are ROMAN CATHOLICS. Do you understand the difference?

Please give us the Gospel according to Rome regarding salvation if you know it. Please don't tell us to eat a cracker and that will do it. LOL LOL

Maybe you should ask friar tuck. He seems to think he has the answer.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#396411 Oct 14, 2012
Fallen Roman Catholic priests are identified as pedophiles, sex abusers, or just nasty perverts. Though they do what homosexuals do, the popular, liberated social status of “homosexual” is denied them, both by their own Church, and by homosexuals at large.

John Leo commented on the current Church sex scandal. But in U.S. News & World Report (April 1), he simply observes that confidence in the clergy “is suddenly gone,” as though this is the fundamental crisis, and not the sexual orientation or identity of the priests.

In passing, he says,“Abusers of teens are generally treatable. Pedophiles aren’t. But the church is reluctant to mention the distinction…” Of course, Leo’s article is not about homosexuality, and doesn’t address homosexual behavior, but it implies that homosexuality never involves abuse or pedophilia as heterosexuality does. Leo is careful not to condemn homosexuality, but condemns only the moral fraud of the priests.

Divested priest Paul Shanley, recently convicted of raping several young boys in St. Jean’s parish in Newton, Massachusetts, was associated of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). As early as 1970 he had publicly defended the pederast enterprise. NAMBLA, according to William N. Grigg (New American, June 3), is a criminal syndicate composed of homosexuals who prey on young boys.
4GVN

Wentzville, MO

#396412 Oct 14, 2012
ReginaM wrote:
SEPTUAGINT QUOTES
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.h...
But of those 300 quotes,NONE were from any of the apocraphal books. Your source is misleading and your hypothesis is untrue.
4GVN

Wentzville, MO

#396413 Oct 14, 2012
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think I hurt him, do you?
;o)
One can only hope.
guest

United States

#396414 Oct 14, 2012
guest wrote:
-
**I know the laws of the land and practice them. If everyone did that, we would have a much better world.**
-
But what about the laws that are meant to be broken? The bad thing about following the laws of the land is that "sometimes" the "Laws of the Land" are evil.
-
Perhaps yours is NOT a government whose history includes Slavery and Genocide of the Indigenous Peoples. I don't know much about Canada's history, but following the Law of the Land in the U.S. meant Slavery for an entire race of people simply for the color of their skin and genocide for another entire race of people, for their race, as well. Naturally a thinking person would know that "those" were laws that are meant to be broken.
-
I hope to think that if I were of that generation I would have been one to protect the victims and speak out BOLDLY about the INJUSTICE of SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE.
-
I truly hope it is simply my personality that when I see evil, I speak out about it and pull no punches. I probably would have been killed speaking out about the "law of the land"when it came to slavery and genocide.
-
-
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
What laws today in america do you consider evil?
We all know there are elements of our past that we are not too proud of, just as the people back then thought so of the generations and laws that came before them.
We don't learn by our achievments, we learn by our mistakes.
-
-
Well in this country it has taken a few hundred years for people to start even "thinking" about 'equality' and 'fairness'... which means people are pretty slow learners ... especially when their perception of being 'fair' and 'equal' means that *somehow* it is a loss for them who wield the power ... in many other countries it's worse.
-
BUT if people were paying heed to the TWO commandments - it would be an INSTANT LESSON - starting the moment Christ uttered the words.
-
-
http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/22.htm

37 Jesus replied:“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it:‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO commandments.”
-
-
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’... since we don't have another planet to move to, I would be inclined to think we are ALL neighbors.
guest

United States

#396415 Oct 15, 2012
guest wrote:
-
The Catholic belief that books were REMOVED from the Hebrew Canon of Scripture are just another lie of the Catholic Church.
-
The books you are referencing were ADDED by the Catholic Church to the HEBREW Bible ...NOT REMOVED by the Protestants!
-
How do we know this FOR A CERTAINTY? The Apocryphal Books were never part of the Hebrew Biblical Canon. The Jewish scriptures were completed 400 to 300 B.C.E. And if anyone would know what was part of the Hebrew Scriptures, I think it would be the Jews!
-
-
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
.
Except ...these texts were ALL part of the Septuagint.
.
(From Catholic.com , so that you will be able to assume you can dismiss it out of hand:)
.
If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
.
For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.
.
By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.
.
But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.
.
Either way,
*****it doesn’t matter,****
because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if
.
*****the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek.*****
.
The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.
.
(endquote)
And once the importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated, as the Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers to quote from it more than any other translation, your argument is broken.
.
Rob
-
-
The VERY CRITICAL point you are missing is this:
-
The

Apocrypha

Was

NEVER

Part

of

The

Jewish

Canon

of

Scripture!

Period. Never.
-
That a "translation of the Hebrew Scriptures to Greek" appeared with *extra stuff* is the problem. They were NOT part of the Jewish Bible.

IF it was NEVER part of the Jewish Canon of Scripture it could not be 'translated into Greek" and therefore it is OBVIOUSLY an ADDITION TO The Hebrew Canon ... by *whoever* was translating.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#396416 Oct 15, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
-
<quoted text>
-
**I know the laws of the land and practice them. If everyone did that, we would have a much better world.**
-
But what about the laws that are meant to be broken? The bad thing about following the laws of the land is that "sometimes" the "Laws of the Land" are evil.
-
Perhaps yours is NOT a government whose history includes Slavery and Genocide of the Indigenous Peoples. I don't know much about Canada's history, but following the Law of the Land in the U.S. meant Slavery for an entire race of people simply for the color of their skin and genocide for another entire race of people, for their race, as well. Naturally a thinking person would know that "those" were laws that are meant to be broken.
-
I hope to think that if I were of that generation I would have been one to protect the victims and speak out BOLDLY about the INJUSTICE of SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE.
-
I truly hope it is simply my personality that when I see evil, I speak out about it and pull no punches. I probably would have been killed speaking out about the "law of the land"when it came to slavery and genocide.
slavery was just about everywhere in the world at one time or another,the catholic church supported slavery of the black man,and probably other races too.
guest

United States

#396417 Oct 15, 2012
guest

United States

#396418 Oct 15, 2012
guest wrote:
-
**I know the laws of the land and practice them. If everyone did that, we would have a much better world.**
-
But what about the laws that are meant to be broken? The bad thing about following the laws of the land is that "sometimes" the "Laws of the Land" are evil.
-
Perhaps yours is NOT a government whose history includes Slavery and Genocide of the Indigenous Peoples. I don't know much about Canada's history, but following the Law of the Land in the U.S. meant Slavery for an entire race of people simply for the color of their skin and genocide for another entire race of people, for their race, as well. Naturally a thinking person would know that "those" were laws that are meant to be broken.
-
I hope to think that if I were of that generation I would have been one to protect the victims and speak out BOLDLY about the INJUSTICE of SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE.
-
I truly hope it is simply my personality that when I see evil, I speak out about it and pull no punches. I probably would have been killed speaking out about the "law of the land"when it came to slavery and genocide.
-
-
jethro8 wrote:
slavery was just about everywhere in the world at one time or another,the catholic church supported slavery of the black man,and probably other races too.
-
yeah, I know.
-
The Catholic Church is about power over the people.
-
They have accomplished this in many ways throughout the years and the point I am trying to make here is that some "laws of the land" simply need to be broken ... rather than respected and adhered to. I would have (most likely) been one to break those evil laws in becoming part of the Underground Railroad and such. I would have risked my life to put a stop to slavery.
-
And I get your point - that where ever there was "power" to be *had* the Catholic Church was SOOOO THERE!
-
The Catholic church disgusts me.
-
and I feel sorry for those who are allowing themselves to be misled by her.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#396419 Oct 15, 2012
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>My cutting bar is not working so I cannot snip your post.Anyway, this god you seem to have here that is so brutal,I do not know exists,unless god is the god of this world,who is the one called Lucifer or Satan.There is no hope or love,or mercy,let alone the grace the Bible speaks of.
I don't know any brutal task master from the Bible,other than Satan.
according to legend he killed thousands in one great flood (don't believe it)god killed a lot of people,few examples:Lot’s wife for looking back,Onan for spilling his seed,3000 For dancing naked around Aaron’s golden calf,A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath,God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites,Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king’s belly,“The Lord smote Benjamin”,Samuel (at God’s command) hacks Agag to death.there are plenty more stories like this in the bible,people choose to ignore them.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#396420 Oct 15, 2012
StarC wrote:
All righty then pope LTM, we should listen to you??!! Ha, ha, ha,!!! A nut that sits home making up interpretation of the Most Holy Bible?? You need to come home to THE True Church that JESUS STARTED. Period There is no such thing as OSAS, confusion by you protestants.. Why is it that some believe that, and some do NOT? Hmmm? Why is it that some baptize infants and some do NOT? Why has all this changed over time? You are trying to tell us that a lil’ church that came over 1900 years after Christ is correct in their teachings??? Catholics go by what the Apostles teach, they walked the earth with Jesus, not by your self interpretation of the bible.
your wrong,LTM is not the pope on this forum,HOJO is,when he posts something he allways says,"WE AS CATHOLICS",he speaks for all catholic people here he appointed himself pope,DOES HE SPEAK FOR ALL CATHOLICS??

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Darwins Stepchild 831,225
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min TIM958 611,960
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 14 min AussieBobby 270,845
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 21 min Paul Porter1 70,157
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 22 min Marlowe 442,986
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 31 min Neelakaran 6,445
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 34 min MUQ1 40,249
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 41 min Rosa_Winkel 99,360
More from around the web