Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 560,516
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#418439 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone went back in a time machine to 200 AD , 800 AD or any year before Protestants established 'denominations' they would quickly find out no one would know what the heck they are talking about when they say, "scripture alone, faith alone, born again, evangelical, denomination, etc..the list goes on.
There was only the Catholic Church.
dont act so foolish.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be [born again]SEE THAT, STRAIGHT FORM THE LIPS OF JESUS HIMSELF.

so I am not the least surprised that you along with all catholics dont have a clue as to what Jesus was Saying, and if YOU dont know what He meant, then you aint Saved.

Jesus never founded any Church, but he did give Salvation to those who are Born Again. No church ever saved one person!

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#418440 Jan 27, 2013
aussiejohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You should check out the writings of a bloke called "Origin". Now as i recall he was writing within a century or so of Jesus's death and was considered for saint hood. Anyway, he went on about people taking much of the new testament too literally and totally missing the point which was intended. Not sure the writers of the Gospels had a debate on embryos in mind when the penned that one. Something much deeper is actually going on.
aussiejohn

I have read Origen....And I have just skimmed the book "On First Principle", chapter 2 "that many by not understanding the scriptures spiritually and by badly understanding fall into heresies"

It is a short chapter. And I would agree with your assessment of the situation with embryos. I brought it forward as preston seems to be an advocate of the "embryo" theory. And I am trying to imagine how he comes up with Jesus being fully human, but not of human ancestry...?
guest

United States

#418441 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
Actually my ignorant friend, the Church added 27 books to scripture. They authoritatively declared it the New Testament. That's how you have a Bible in the first place to beat us over the head with.
-
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>Thats why we are to reffer to the orginal source as a referrence point because of the HARM YOUR Church the RCC has caused and done.
-
-
According to the Catholic church, the Jews didn't know what belonged in the scriptures, so they added 7 books!
-
Never mind that the canon of Jewish scripture was closed and the Apocrypha was NEVER included, and are not part of it today.
-
So why does the Catholic church think it can add so many books to the Jewish canon?
-
The same reason the Catholic church does anything: they think Jesus gave the right to Peter to change up everything.
-
They think Peter is the first in a long line of Popes bringing "New Revelation" much like the Mormon Church believes they, too, have New Revelation - and in fact, Catholics claim the Bible is not accurate - much like the Mormons do when they say, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God in so far as it has been translated accurately."
Only thing is: They never tell you that they don't believe the Bible is accurately translated! Which means they have given themselves license to do as they see fit. You know? If the Bible isn't *accurate*... then what?
-
But listen to what Peter himself said:
-
http://niv.scripturetext.com/2_peter/2.htm

2 Peter 2

False Teachers and Their Destruction

1 But there were also FALSE PROPHETS among the people, just as there will be FALSE TEACHERS AMONG YOU. They will secretly introduce DESTRUCTIVE HERESIES, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 MANY WILL FOLLOW THEIR SHAMEFUL WAYS AND WILL BRING THE WAY OF TRUTH INTO DISREPUTE. 3 In their GREED these TEACHERS will EXPLOIT YOU with STORIES THEY HAVE MADE UP. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
-
-
There were FALSE TEACHERS even in the FIRST CENTURY just doing what they wanted to do. Going against the WRITTEN Word of God!
-
About 400 years AFTER Peter uttered the above words at 2 Peter 2, Augustine was busy doing his OWN thing in the so-called "church" that Christ founded. Even though he LATER acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between books of the Hebrew canon, and such "outside books" of the Apocrypha, Augustine initiated inclusion of them into the Hebrew canon.... around 800 years after the Hebrew canon was closed! If that is not arrogant actions of a *false prophet*, I don't know what is. Basically you have a Catholic telling the Hebrews what was correct in their own Bible.
-
What is most amazing though, is it was not until the Council of Trent, in 1546 C.E., that the Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of those books ... about 30 years AFTER the Protestant Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther. Go figure!
-

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#418442 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I would disagree. All 'Christian' cults accept the word of God. Its just their opinion on what its saying...They simply apply their ideology to it and feel justified under sola scripture.
Frankly, Preston, you can't argue with them because you too believe in sola scripture
Who's going to tell either of ya you're wrong?
are you on some meds that you are taking now? your post doesnt make sense to me.

cults take away from the Word of God, I who believe in Sola scripture dont.

If you take away words and meanings, then you dont believe in sola scriptures.

he said that originally people werent baptised in the Name of the father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I who believe in SS, couldnt go along with that, in my belief that the Word of God is All Sufficient to meet all Needs, and needs nothing else to align with It.
ReginaM

Jackson, NJ

#418443 Jan 27, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>dont act so foolish.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be [born again]SEE THAT, STRAIGHT FORM THE LIPS OF JESUS HIMSELF.
so I am not the least surprised that you along with all catholics dont have a clue as to what Jesus was Saying, and if YOU dont know what He meant, then you aint Saved.
Jesus never founded any Church, but he did give Salvation to those who are Born Again. No church ever saved one person!
Sorry, Preston, you're wrong. Christ said He would build His church upon the rock of St. Peter...He didn't say he would build Christianity. The NT speaks continuously of His church.

OT: Doesn't 4 live in MO? And isn't he/she fond of using the term <snicker>? The answer to both is yes.....
guest

United States

#418444 Jan 27, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ founded a church, not Christianity.

>>> clipped for emphasis <<<
-
Followers of Christ are "Christian."
-
Followers of the Pope are "Catholic."
-
and there is a world of difference between the two.
-
IF CHRIST WAS NOT THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WHO WAS?

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#418445 Jan 27, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>dont be as stupid as some others on this forum. the word "conceive' means a BEGINNING, IT DOESNT REFER TO SEX BETWEEN GOD AND MARY. A BEGINNING OF HER PREGNANCY , AS SHE NOW BECAME THE SURROGATE MOTHER OF THE SON OF GOD.
your words"God put an embryo from some unknown source " are rediculous, THE SOURCE IS GOD, NOT SOME UNKNOWN SOURCE.
of course there is no mention of the word"embryo" since it wasnt used until 1548, so get real. AND NO, we might not assume that God caused one of her eggs to become an embryo, it doesnt work that way since it takes male sperm to produce an embryo, BUT GOD DIDNT NEED NOR USE ANY EGG FROM HER SINCE THAT MAKES JESUS HALF MAN/ HALF GOD
preston

If God created Adam, and all have descended from Adam, then how can God create a second Adam(Jesus) to redeem the first Adam, if there is nothing of the first Adam within Jesus?

You have removed Jesus from being descended from Adam with your idea that God put "something" in Mary.(You use the word embryo before, but somehow that offends you now....)

You have come up with the idea also of Mary as a SURROGATE, rather than being the direct earthly mother in which SHE conceived in HER womb(Luke 1:31,35) by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, as justification for your "something" in Mary.

Your two ideas of embryo implantation by God,(rather than her conceived in her womb by God), and SURROGACY,(from the line of Adam through Mary), are way outside what the Bible declares.

In essence you have reduced Jesus to being some idea of yours you project onto God, of Jesus without being human, thus nullified the death and ressurrection.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418446 Jan 27, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>are you on some meds that you are taking now? your post doesnt make sense to me.
cults take away from the Word of God, I who believe in Sola scripture dont.
If you take away words and meanings, then you dont believe in sola scriptures.
he said that originally people werent baptised in the Name of the father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I who believe in SS, couldnt go along with that, in my belief that the Word of God is All Sufficient to meet all Needs, and needs nothing else to align with It.
Lol. no I'm not on any meds.

I don't really think people in cults follow the word of God either.
what I meant to say is, they THINK they are.
And if Sola Scripture was true, they would be no more valid then you. They are seeing the Bible the way they know how and no one who subscribes to Sola Scripture has any right to say anything.
To each his own.
Hence, by the end of this year, there will be over 50,000 denominations in the world. Some will be similar in doctrine, some will be poles apart.
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418447 Jan 27, 2013
JUST-A-CHRISTIAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry to hear that, and pray you will feel better real soon, Clay. I know it's not fun, by any means.
If clay had a migraine he wouldn't be on a computer I promise you that.
I took migrines for 5 years, I would rather be in labour.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418448 Jan 27, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
<quoted text>
-
-
According to the Catholic church, the Jews didn't know what belonged in the scriptures, so they added 7 books!
-
Never mind that the canon of Jewish scripture was closed and the Apocrypha was NEVER included, and are not part of it today.
-
So why does the Catholic church think it can add so many books to the Jewish canon?
-
The same reason the Catholic church does anything: they think Jesus gave the right to Peter to change up everything.
-
They think Peter is the first in a long line of Popes bringing "New Revelation" much like the Mormon Church believes they, too, have New Revelation - and in fact, Catholics claim the Bible is not accurate - much like the Mormons do when they say, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God in so far as it has been translated accurately."
Only thing is: They never tell you that they don't believe the Bible is accurately translated! Which means they have given themselves license to do as they see fit. You know? If the Bible isn't *accurate*... then what?
-
But listen to what Peter himself said:
-
http://niv.scripturetext.com/2_peter/2.htm
2 Peter 2
False Teachers and Their Destruction
1 But there were also FALSE PROPHETS among the people, just as there will be FALSE TEACHERS AMONG YOU. They will secretly introduce DESTRUCTIVE HERESIES, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 MANY WILL FOLLOW THEIR SHAMEFUL WAYS AND WILL BRING THE WAY OF TRUTH INTO DISREPUTE. 3 In their GREED these TEACHERS will EXPLOIT YOU with STORIES THEY HAVE MADE UP. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
-
-
There were FALSE TEACHERS even in the FIRST CENTURY just doing what they wanted to do. Going against the WRITTEN Word of God!
-
About 400 years AFTER Peter uttered the above words at 2 Peter 2, Augustine was busy doing his OWN thing in the so-called "church" that Christ founded. Even though he LATER acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between books of the Hebrew canon, and such "outside books" of the Apocrypha, Augustine initiated inclusion of them into the Hebrew canon.... around 800 years after the Hebrew canon was closed! If that is not arrogant actions of a *false prophet*, I don't know what is. Basically you have a Catholic telling the Hebrews what was correct in their own Bible.
-
What is most amazing though, is it was not until the Council of Trent, in 1546 C.E., that the Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of those books ... about 30 years AFTER the Protestant Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther. Go figure!
-
Guest, you're propaganda laced slander does nothing but get you further trapped in deceit.

Couple questions:

Do you think Luther had the authority to determine scripture canon?

The answer should be no.

So, who had the authority to determine scripture canon?

I'm saddened because I spent a great deal of time showing you your error last time.
You were wrong about the Bible.

For some reason, you ignored it. You keep living in some fantasy history.
I wish one of ya could offer a scenario that makes sense, but you can't.
So I guess I have to remain Catholic. You've failed me Guest.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418449 Jan 27, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
If clay had a migraine he wouldn't be on a computer I promise you that.
I took migrines for 5 years, I would rather be in labour.
I think there are certain degrees of migraines, depending on the person.
BUT, I exaggerated and didn't mean to imply it was severe. I'm fine, but it made me crabby.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418450 Jan 27, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
Followers of Christ are "Christian."
-
Followers of the Pope are "Catholic."
-
and there is a world of difference between the two.
-
IF CHRIST WAS NOT THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WHO WAS?
Christ founded one Church.
Now I could be mistaken on how the word 'Christian' came to be, so any help would be appreciated..
The word Christian was applied as a nickname for the followers of Jesus by people who were not 'Christian'.

If you read the New Testament thru the eyes of someone who didn't have any pre conceived knowledge of religion, you would clearly see Jesus Christ started a Church and made Peter His first leader before He died.
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418451 Jan 27, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
-
-
<quoted text>
-
-
I agree LTM.
-
The ideology propounded by Ratzinger, and all Catholics, is the same tired old stuff, repeated ad nauseam by Catholic leaders and Catholic followers.
-
Jesus' name was not even mentioned here by Ratzinger - I wonder if any of the Catholics here noticed that? and for Ratzinger to say that "Peter has *repeatedly* stood as The Rock" is nothing short of blasphemy.
-
Peter is DEAD and incapable of standing as the rock.
-
JESUS is NOT DEAD, but has been resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father. JESUS is the ROCK the Christian Faith was built on. Not Peter.
I noticed "guest' The catholic church teaching has taken all Jesus' power and divided it up Church, mary, Peter, Pope, not in that order but close.
They don't realize with Jesus ,nothing else is needed.
'GOD'S GRACE IS SUFFICENT"
Guest

Poplar Bluff, MO

#418452 Jan 27, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>are you on some meds that you are taking now? your post doesnt make sense to me.
cults take away from the Word of God, I who believe in Sola scripture dont.
If you take away words and meanings, then you dont believe in sola scriptures.
he said that originally people werent baptised in the Name of the father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I who believe in SS, couldnt go along with that, in my belief that the Word of God is All Sufficient to meet all Needs, and needs nothing else to align with It.
By referring to the original Greek text how does that make me NOT go along with SOLO SCRIPTURE.

That makes you WRONG as was qouted not me.
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418453 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there are certain degrees of migraines, depending on the person.
BUT, I exaggerated and didn't mean to imply it was severe. I'm fine, but it made me crabby.
I am sorry for your headache Clay, I know how bad they can be.
I can tell you its worst then having a baby really
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418454 Jan 27, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry for your headache Clay, I know how bad they can be.
I can tell you its worst then having a baby really
Thanks. I bet you think headaches are worse than having a baby because you babies eventually gave you headaches. lol

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418455 Jan 27, 2013
434
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ founded a church, not Christianity. That church is the Catholic Church, so no it isn't a denomination. Denominationalism within Christianity is peculiar to protestantism. It was unheard of until the deformation a few hundred years ago.
You have a penchant for using contemporary American secular resources to define your beliefs (dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the like). An ecclesial gathering/meeting is not properly a church.
I gave you the definition of "church" from the Greek word it was translated from....your denial of this definition changes not its meaning.

New book just out...it is call "a dictionary"...

denomination
1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418456 Jan 27, 2013
450
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ founded one Church.
Now I could be mistaken on how the word 'Christian' came to be, so any help would be appreciated..
The word Christian was applied as a nickname for the followers of Jesus by people who were not 'Christian'.
If you read the New Testament thru the eyes of someone who didn't have any pre conceived knowledge of religion, you would clearly see Jesus Christ started a Church and made Peter His first leader before He died.
Horse pucket...Not Chrisy...Constantine...

The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god.

Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome.

However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418457 Jan 27, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Preston, you're wrong. Christ said He would build His church upon the rock of St. Peter...He didn't say he would build Christianity. The NT speaks continuously of His church.
OT: Doesn't 4 live in MO? And isn't he/she fond of using the term <snicker>? The answer to both is yes.....
Regina you are wrong, The church that Jesus built is still on going soul by soul it will be that way until Jesus comes back.

The first person whose was chosen by God was Abraham, His faith was counted as righteousness.
Because He believe God, I am not talking about believe "IN GOD"
I mean He believed God, when He made a covenant with him.
We have a new covenant a Blood Covenant that is what the N.T. means. Do you believe God, Regina, to do what He said He would do .
Proverbs 3:5-6
"TRUST IN THE lORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART,
LEAN NOT ON YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING ,
ACKNOWLEDGE HIM IN EVERY WAY ,
AND HE WILL DIRECT YOUR PATH.
Without faith you can not please God, without faith God will not move He can't.
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418458 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I bet you think headaches are worse than having a baby because you babies eventually gave you headaches. lol
LOL I can't argue with that Clay.
the day I brought home my second baby I laid down and woke up with a migrine headache. For 5 years I had them, they just stopped I haven't had one for years now.
I use to take med's for them I would have them for 3-4 days at a time.
They use to give me little blue pills to put under my tongue, they work fast.
You should ask the doctor, for some before that I had to go to the hospital for shots, which made me sleep with 2 small children that didn't work for me.

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) 4 min Aura Mytha 778,476
Moses never existed 20 min Khatru 833
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 30 min Just American 4,898
Incest: Horny and looking for good stories :) (Nov '13) 58 min lokito 11
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Ugly Truth from d... 605,347
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 1 hr Just American 1,030
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr SAYS IT ALL 96,865
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 265,472
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 8 hr risque 137
More from around the web