Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 596557 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.

4GVN

Wentzville, MO

#407791 Dec 8, 2012
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Its fair to point out that all of Christianity had the same number of books since the Church compiled a bible. That is, until Luther removed some.
Did a rogue Priest have the authority to remove any books from the Bible and still claim he's a Christian? I don't think so.
Btw, these are wonderful scripture to read.
It is fair to say that it took Martin Luther and his stand against their unbiblical teachings to get them to 'finally' canonizee the partial list of Apocryphal books. Why do you suppose they did not do so 1500 yrs. earlier? Hmmm. We all know, don't we Clay?
4GVN

Wentzville, MO

#407792 Dec 8, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="preston "NOPE, BUT LIKE I SAID YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.
Ditto (ME, TOO)
KM
You knew that LTM was talking about me, just as I knew.
when you,Saphrira, put on the gloves against me, expect the same from me.
**********
LTM did not mention you...and I did not think of you while reading it. However, you and everyone else knows that you (and a lot more) needed that word.
I didn't put any gloves on preston...you were not provoked. YOU returned to your 'fraud' lie without any provocation from me...you were mad with LTM.
That is why I said you 'fell off of the wagon'.:)
The war goes on in your head.
KayMarie (Sapphira :)
Do you think there is really 'anything' going on in that head'? The man is a nut job! When will you people get it? Why would you KEEP posting to him and subjecting yourselves to his issues?
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#407793 Dec 8, 2012
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well His hair might have been shoulder length, I don't think it was a brush cut D.S.
But 1 Cor 11:15 says!! a man should look like a man, and a woman a woman.
Jesus was a Jew, and he would have follow the Jewish laws, His culture and area would have played a big part in His hair length too.
Either way Jesus is Jesus and I love Him it doesn't matter His hair length does it.
If you were capapable of being honest, which you are not then you would not be trying to avoid the truth in what I said. You are bringing up hair length as per your own perception as an argument then you say it doesn't matter, nor do you understand nor want to the message being conveyed. It is more important to try to save face in your pride. So be it. Want of truth or any understanding is not your forte, you have made that clear many times.
LTM

Sault Sainte Marie, Canada

#407794 Dec 8, 2012
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
LTM, its oddly ironic everyone uses those verses against the Church. Don't you think?
We clearly have the same interpretations since the first century.
You guys do not.
I've asked this before: In your opinion, at what point did Christianity go AWOL?
And at what point did Christianity finally 'get it right'?
The Catholic Church can't trace themselves to any person other than Jesus Christ.
So if we're wrong, then which one of you 40,000 are right?
Clay, I just posted Matthew 24 to KM. not to discredit the catholic church .
I don't believe to a relgious denomination because I don't beleive any of them have it absolutely right.
God alone has it right and everyone else a lair .
When they started removing prayer and the Bible from schools the Ten Commandments from government buildings, and we Christians didn't say a word, is when Christianity went AWOL Clay.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#407795 Dec 8, 2012
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
We talked about this before on here I believe, appearantly. from what I understand . the time, culture, and the area from which Jesus came from would mean His hair would have been short .
Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 11:3-15. A man’s hair should look masculine.
~~~~

What the Apostle Paul wrote in 1Cor 11:13-16 was not under the Law.

He wrote..

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

but He also said....

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

QUESTION

WHY SHOULD JESUS HAVE SHORT HAIR?

Jesus lived and died under the Law...The Law was fulfilled at His death.

THE PRIEST UNDER THE lEVITICAL LAW WERE TOLD..

Eze 44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

JUST HOW LONG ....IS LONG HAIR...and how short is considered short?

Can you define it with scripture?

To me it is a hair splitting argument...
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#407796 Dec 8, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>It is fair to say that it took Martin Luther and his stand against their unbiblical teachings to get them to 'finally' canonizee the partial list of Apocryphal books. Why do you suppose they did not do so 1500 yrs. earlier? Hmmm. We all know, don't we Clay?
ZZZZZ...No we don't.

This is pretty much the stock false attack on the Catholic Church's inclusion of the deuterocanonical books.

1. There's no such thing as a "Universal Council". The Council of Trent was an Ecumenical Council, but it wasn't the first Ecumenical Council to list the books of Sacred Scripture exactly as Trent does, including the deuterocanonical books. That includes the Council of Florence (Session 11, February 4, 1442) which took place over 100 years before Trent. You can read more about that, including the decree on my deuterocanon page.

2. Even if the Catholic Church hadn't included the books until Trent, that does not account for their inclusion in the Canon of Scripture adhered to by various Orthodox Churches that do not accept Trent (and most generally any council after 1054 AD).

3. There is NO COUNCIL that gives the Canon of Sacred Scripture as modern Jews or Protestants have it. None.

4. If the council of Trent added the deuterocanon, how did Martin Luther move them to an index called "Apocrypha" 20 years earlier?

5. If the Council of Trent added the books to the Bible, how did the Gutenberg Bible, the first Bible Published via Printing Press, printed 100 years before Trent, include the deutercanonical books?

6. If the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonical books to the Bible at Trent, how did the Latin Vulgate (from the 4th Century AD) include them? How did the Vetus Latina (even earlier Latin Bibles), the Major Codices, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc include them?

The fact of the matter is, that while an old, and common heard argument, the notion that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible at the Council of Trent is quite simply false. Historical evidence is quite clearly to the contrary, and anyone inclined to look at old Bibles (either on line, or in museums) can verify it to be so. Again, my deuterocanon page, linked above, and also at the bottom of this document, goes into these issues in some depth not done here.

Given the facts, it's quite obvious that in the case of the alleged "Council of Jamnia", and in the case of protestantism, the attempts to remove the deuterocanonical books were based on hatred for the Church, and indeed an attempt for Jewish "authorities" to make pronouncements on books they knew Christians considered Sacred Scripture, and that contained prophecies predicting Christ and support for other Christian doctrine.
https://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapolog...
Clay

Chicago, IL

#407797 Dec 8, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>It is fair to say that it took Martin Luther and his stand against their unbiblical teachings to get them to 'finally' canonizee the partial list of Apocryphal books. Why do you suppose they did not do so 1500 yrs. earlier? Hmmm. We all know, don't we Clay?
Hmmm, no we don't all know.

Its not good to be Biblically ignorant just so you think you're justified in teaching as you do.

Its clear you and the other products of Luther and Calvin changed Scripture meaning AND scripture itself by removing books from the Bible.
Its not too late to repent and come back. You, Confrint and others would have been better off never to venture into this arena. You could have read your bible, prayed and believed as you do without being held responsible.
But what do you do now? Its been proven too many times to count, that your theology is not what was taught. Therefore is not the will of Christ.
Many Evangelical Preachers were at this same crossroad and chose to cease preaching things they now knew to be un biblical. I know you're not a preacher, but you're still on here spreading your version of the faith.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#407798 Dec 8, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
Christian is as Christian does...
WOW! All that just to avoid saying that you didn't do what you could to get the video out.

You story is a lie. Now, are you lying to bring people closer to god? Naw, few are stupid enough to believe your story.

Are you lying to show christians how stupid they sound when they lie for god? Naw, I don't think so.

Are you lying to get attention? Bingo! That gets my vote.
preston

Waverly, OH

#407799 Dec 8, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
First this does not mean that I believe the video, but because you say Jesus hair would have been short.
Just for the record what some of you Protestants may regard as short hair was not a military haircut as one would have today. It was quite normal for a man to have hair below the shoulder. Hair by women was worn extremely long going sometimes down to the floor. An analogy by Paul is only being applied to effiminate men who were mimicking the women. Sampson who had taken the Nazarene vow and a scissor never touched his hair would not qualify as effeminate. This is yet another example of personal interpreation applying modern understanding not the time it was written or to whom it was written in context. The lack of knowledge distorting the scripture.
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
KM, do you believe this is really?? I am a sceptic.
The bible warns us of this sort of thing.
I also don't believe it is real because Jesus hair would have been short would it of not.

be careful or she will have her buddy Orville,issue a fatwa against you.

she says that she has an anointing, but it doesnt show, she is as dumb as a dodo,

and it is her own Personal intrepretation, no other person agrees with her, well maybe marge might

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#407800 Dec 8, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
You keep citing the Levitical laws from the Old testament...
that only applied to the Israelite at that time,...
that has no relevance to/with us as gentiles..
You are not even in the same galaxy that we are...
no even the same time and space.
___
Pro_4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Where does god or jesus say, "These laws of god's are only for the, "Israelite at that time"?

I'll give you a clue. Neither god nor jesus is ever credited with making such a statement.

Here is another clue, jesus 'said', "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law"

Has heaven and earth passed? No.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#407801 Dec 8, 2012
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you. The guy looked like Jim Morrison.
He looks like a fake Jesus... Like how a person might dress if they were doing a play. Its too wishy
Washy. It'd be cool if it really was though.
Do you believe that some idiots are trying to pass that off as jesus! LOL!
preston

Waverly, OH

#407802 Dec 8, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~~
What the Apostle Paul wrote in 1Cor 11:13-16 was not under the Law.
QUESTION
WHY SHOULD JESUS HAVE SHORT HAIR?
Jesus lived and died under the Law...The Law was fulfilled at His death.
THE PRIEST UNDER THE lEVITICAL LAW WERE TOLD..
Eze 44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.
JUST HOW LONG ....IS LONG HAIR...and how short is considered short?
Can you define it with scripture?
To me it is a hair splitting argument...
I guess that in the 125 years that you two have studied that you have found out yet that Jesus was from the tribe of Juda, not the Levitical tribe, therefore he was not in the priestly line.

Jesus came from Nazareth therefore he lived as they did. not cutting His hair, therefore your postulation(not surprising) is incorrect.

Jesus was a Priest forever after the order of Malki Tzedek

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#407803 Dec 8, 2012
confrinting with the word wrote:
Why would His hair have been short?
Yes, I believe it. He was larger than the congregation, and He was standing over a group who were praying for a blind woman...who was healed. I know the girl who did the video, and I know the preacher who preached.
The singers there were from our church college.
KayMarie
Do a little research. Find out what a first century jewish man looked like. Then look at what the romans created as an image of jesus.

Your ignorance can be cured! Just a little research will cure it right up.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#407804 Dec 8, 2012
Djard wrote:
A careful and objective study of Mt. 16:18-19 will immediately end the argument about whether or not Catholicism has any foundation in Christianity. Unfortunately the matter is most visible in the Greek text. Most Bible translators erroneously change the past participle to future tense in v.19 to accommodate modern syntax at the cost of critical theology.
But even if this proof of the great Catholic error were to be offered, I doubt anyone in the Babylonian-based organization would recognize that Mt. 7:21-23 is chiefly directed at them. The blasphemy of the Pope is just another sign of the end times in which we live. I too was a Catholic until becoming a Bible translator. I'm living proof that Catholicism is not hereditary. Selah.
Djard

I don't know what you are talking about.
Matthew 16:19 has no particples in it, past or future....

If you mean "I will give"(doso in Gk), then there are 23 other occurences in the Bible which are wrong....See Strong's

http://biblesuite.com/greek/do_so__1325.htm

Matthew 7:21-23 is not directed at Babylonian religion....

I submit you are wrong in both instances. Your blindness, not everyone else....

Sorry.
preston

Waverly, OH

#407805 Dec 8, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were capapable of being honest, which you are not then you would not be trying to avoid the truth in what I said. You are bringing up hair length as per your own perception as an argument then you say it doesn't matter, nor do you understand nor want to the message being conveyed. It is more important to try to save face in your pride. So be it. Want of truth or any understanding is not your forte, you have made that clear many times.
for you to say that she is not being honest entails that you thnk she is a liar.

I concur!and so do many, many people on this forum.
7th Day Catholics Rock

Poplar Bluff, MO

#407806 Dec 8, 2012
preston wrote:
<quoted text>I have NEVER seen one post from you in which you admitted that Orville should never have said that he PRAYED that God would kill me.
NO CHRISTIAN WOULD EVER AGREE THAT ANY PERSON SHOULD EVER SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND YOU TOOK HIS PART AGAINST ME EVEN WHEN i SHOWED YOU THAT HE WAS ATTACKING ME.
You came on this forum acting like you were a goddess or something, bragging about your {anointing},
the FACT that you supported Orville in his heinous behavior is proof that I was right when I withstood you, your anointing comes from satan the FATHER of liars(like you).
you and I made a covenant(NOW WIGGLE OUT OF THAT, WHY DONT YOU) not to attack each other and you lied and broke it by supporting the likes of Orville
Why would anyone want to make a covenant with you after already entering a covenant with Christ. isn't that something thatSatan would think to do and try to put into action. YES IT IS.
Get Behind Me SATAN.
7th Day Catholics Rock

Poplar Bluff, MO

#407807 Dec 8, 2012
preston wrote:
<quoted text>quit lying!!!!
and that verse ahs nothing to do witth you. liars have no place in Gods Home.
and when I go into a Church, I am always asked to set up in front, and sometimes people are asked to move to provide me a seat.
THAT IS BIBLICAL.LOL
and if you knew, really knew me, you would be shaking in your lying boots.
Thanks for the LAUGH ..........rotflol !!!!

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#407808 Dec 8, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does god or jesus say, "These laws of god's are only for the, "Israelite at that time"?
I'll give you a clue. Neither god nor jesus is ever credited with making such a statement.
Here is another clue, jesus 'said', "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law"
Has heaven and earth passed? No.
TBS

You have a point....A good one, concerning the civil law in the O.T. I think the main issue for Christians is that they follow the moral laws contained in the O.T., and they do not follow the ritual and civil laws....

And although you might not acknowledge that civil law is progressive in the Bible, and grows in time, I think it does.

Why are there millions/billions of them now in the U.S., when a couple of generations ago there may have been hundereds? So do you want to bring back the old civil laws in the U.S.? That would mean everyone MUST carry a firearm, under penalty of going to jail....

But with that aside, you now quote the N.T.,about jots and tittles, heaven and earth....

Does that mean you think that the Universe exists, and at some point in the past did not exist?(i.e. Big Bang?)

Does that mean you think that the Universe at some point will not exist?

Do you think that the Universe at some point has not passed away, and been re-Created? What evidence do you have?
preston

Waverly, OH

#407809 Dec 8, 2012
7th Day Catholics Rock wrote:
<quoted text>Why would anyone want to make a covenant with you after already entering a covenant with Christ..
a covenant is an agreement stupid.

Covenant (law), a promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action
preston

Waverly, OH

#407810 Dec 8, 2012
7th Day Catholics Rock wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the LAUGH ..........rotflol !!!!
everytime that you post, your ignorance is in evidence re; covenant

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) 7 min nanoanomaly 855,518
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 18 min Rider on the Storm 177,213
The Christian Atheist debate 22 min The_Box 1,040
Social Business Accelerator - Social Media Trai... 44 min ahmadwael 1
How To Make Money On Craigslist 47 min ahmadwael 1
kisebhi chooth ho may chatke choothki pani piuga 51 min prasadvs 1
Twitter Arab Master 51 min ahmadwael 3
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr karl44 444,358
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Happy Lesbo 612,643
More from around the web