Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 600202 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.

truth

Perth, Australia

#419195 Jan 31, 2013
your work is in vain

What ever you have even entire globe on the end you will be loser..why?
vanity vanity vanity=your work trough every sphere

now
How much you love me??????????
Why should be??????????

Did God told you?
Don't lose yourself because of me!
Why God say that?

Who is liar from beginning?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419196 Jan 31, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not but what I do have is common sense
May be the dumbest thing I've seen you post..no lie
Thank you. I welcome insults from those who ridicule and belittle our Blessed Mother.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#419197 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Your turn. Give me the verses that teach bible alone and give us the inspired table of contents.
It doesn't say what your looking for but it does say this:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

**for training in righteousness and yet you think there is a better reliable source for a christian.

**You're turn...what the 1,260 days refer to.

I'll give you a hint. Look at Matt 24:15-21...Jesus is talking about Israel...The Woman
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#419198 Jan 31, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
American King James Version
You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
American Standard Version
Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
New International Version (©1984)
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
New Living Translation (©2007)
So you see, we are shown to be right with God by what we do, not by faith alone.
English Standard Version (©2001)
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
International Standard Version (©2012)
You observe that a person is justified through actions and not through faith alone.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
You see that by works a man is justified and not from faith alone.
Looks like we're not justified by faith alone.
Faith ONLY is an "invented, made up, concocted" Protestant "personal opinion" belief, in which you, Regina have "proven" to has "no basis" of biblical or historical truth to back up ANY of
bible only mis-interpretation of the bible---"myths" that Protestants are so "famous for". Good post Regina! Unfortunately, you can bet that even when put "out in front of them---Protestants will "brush the TRUTH aside" clinging to their "anti-catholicism" as "desperate as ever"!
marge

Ames, IA

#419199 Jan 31, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
American King James Version
You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
American Standard Version
Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
New International Version (©1984)
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
New Living Translation (©2007)
So you see, we are shown to be right with God by what we do, not by faith alone.
English Standard Version (©2001)
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
International Standard Version (©2012)
You observe that a person is justified through actions and not through faith alone.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
You see that by works a man is justified and not from faith alone.
Looks like we're not justified by faith alone.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,.... Not as causes procuring his justification, but as effects declaring it; for the best works are imperfect, and cannot be a righteousness justifying in the sight of God, and are unprofitable in this respect; for when they are performed in the best manner, they are no other than what it is a man's duty to perform, and therefore cannot justify from sin he has committed: and besides, justification in this sense would frustrate the grace of God, make void the death of Christ, and encourage boasting in men. Good works do not go before justification as causes or conditions, but follow it as fruits and effects.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#419200 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. I welcome insults from those who ridicule and belittle our Blessed Mother.
I didn't do any of the 3.

Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him,“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said,“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

***Why didn't Jesus say to the woman in the crowd what you folks say about Mary?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419201 Jan 31, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't say what your looking for but it does say this:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
**for training in righteousness and yet you think there is a better reliable source for a christian.
**You're turn...what the 1,260 days refer to.
I'll give you a hint. Look at Matt 24:15-21...Jesus is talking about Israel...The Woman
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
truth

Perth, Australia

#419202 Jan 31, 2013
your reference to me is zerooooooooooooooooooooooo

''i am not going
where you going''

noooooooooooooo

Did Jesus say to his discipline like that?
yes it is..

Don't insult Jesus.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#419203 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
I never said I can prove from scripture it was the sole authority. I said if God's Word it good for training in righteousness, why use anything else?

I guess you would if you were catholic.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419204 Jan 31, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't say what your looking for but it does say this:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
**for training in righteousness and yet you think there is a better reliable source for a christian.
**You're turn...what the 1,260 days refer to.
I'll give you a hint. Look at Matt 24:15-21...Jesus is talking about Israel...The Woman
Is the woman in Revelation always only Israel?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#419205 Jan 31, 2013
146
JUST-A-CHRISTIAN wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a darn good question!! They didn't have Sears and Roebuck in them thar days either!:)
Probably the cause of the old custom of shaking hands with the left hand...they knew it was clean!!!!
ReginaM

Middletown, NJ

#419206 Jan 31, 2013
Sill protestants, tricks are for kids.

28 But he said,“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Yes, the Virgin Mary is blessed, but even more so because she heard the word of God and kept it, she did God's will.
Catholic Girl

Bethpage, NY

#419207 Jan 31, 2013
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
God! You believe everything they teach you!(lol)
If you know so much about ones soul, than you must know these answers.
1) How does your soul leave your body?
2) Where in your body is your soul?
3) If you don't know where purgatory, heaven or hell is, how is your soul suppose to get there?
.....I wish I had some swamp land to sell you. I could convince you to buy it all.
I know the answer you seek.
1). upon death your soul immediately rises up to heaven.
2). the soul is a spriit within your heart
3). guardian angel must help you out on this one, just look up thats where heaven is silly.

I have a bridge for sale, care to trust a mere mortal and purchase that bridge.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#419208 Jan 31, 2013
152
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you give me the book and chapter so I can read about it.
That will not happen....there is no such Scripture...that is not based on the teaching of Christ..
truth

Perth, Australia

#419209 Jan 31, 2013
yes
we say
thanks to Father for his creation
thanks to Son as Redeemer as Salvation
thanks to Mother
holy womb but Jesus..

most you forget

Thanks to Holy Spirit!
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#419210 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves -that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
I get it Tony. If catholics don't believe the bible is the only/final authority, their popes can make up doctrines so catholics can be under their authority.

-assumption of Mary and my new favorite...all who follow her Son are her offspring.
ReginaM

Middletown, NJ

#419211 Jan 31, 2013
*[11:27–28] The beatitude in Lk 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see note on Lk 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Lk 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/11/

Amen! Now THAT is biblical exegesis! Not the silly nonsense that protestant put forth because they haven't got anything else.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419212 Jan 31, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't do any of the 3.
Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him,“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said,“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
***Why didn't Jesus say to the woman in the crowd what you folks say about Mary?
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.

Luke 11:28 - when Jesus says, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it," some Protestants also call this a rebuke of Mary. Again, to the contrary, Jesus is exalting Mary by emphasizing her obedience to God's word as being more critical than her biological role of mother. This affirms Luke 1:48.

Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for "rather" is "menounge." Menounge really means "Yes, but in addition," or "Further." Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary's example in order to build up His kingdom.

Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.

We call her the Blessed Virgin Mary because she is called blessed, she was a virgin and her name was Mary. We call her the Blessed Mother because she was called blessed and she is the mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God the Son.

You want to use this verse to belittle and demean her role, yet do you think Jesus would have broken the commandment by not honoring His mother? Why won't you honor His mother?
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#419213 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the woman in Revelation always only Israel?
Tony...we have a thing going here. Remember it's your turn. Please interpret for me if the Woman is Mary. thanks

Rev 12:6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419215 Jan 31, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said I can prove from scripture it was the sole authority. I said if God's Word it good for training in righteousness, why use anything else?
I guess you would if you were catholic.
Most protestants adhere to sola scriptura. I guess you're an exception.

Why 'use' anything else? Because the gospel was preached orally for a decade or more before a single passage of the NT was written. The oral preaching of the Word of God by the same men who wrote the NT is no less valuable than the written Word of God. That's why.

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 PELE78 866,018
Christianity is fading away... 5 min messianic114 17
The Christian Atheist debate 7 min Critical Eye 2,114
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 19 min Pegasus 272,465
clean black, green,stampcurrency.black dollar,e... (Jan '13) 2 hr Amber rose 3
Bad Contractors Montreal (Sep '08) 2 hr Watchout Consumers 7
READ! Tuxedo Crew is OFFICIAL! They are the BEST (Jun '14) 3 hr dfsdvseefr 7
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 12 hr Malcolm 46
More from around the web