Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Jul 10, 2007 Read more: CBC News 579,652
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Read more
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423344 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
He quoted from the "manual" (v. 1) quite often. Knowing that he was updating the "manual" with the new covenant he was putting in place for man, it seems logical to logical people that He would inspire the writing of that new covenant to highlight for mankind the fulfilled prophesies and to chronicle His life, death, resurrection, church and any changes in implementation of worship etc. that His being our Savior would change from that Law of Moses he quoted so often.
I don't understand how the Catholics on this thread could attempt to tarnish the validity of the Bible in one statement, say that everything they do is scriptural in the next and then immediately say statements like it is unscriptural to be scriptural. Sounds eerily similar to Obama defending his policy and actions.
Christ did not quote the Bible, I don't believe, as His life predicated NT scripture.

Also, although you persist in saying so to construct your argument, no Catholic denies the valildity of scripture.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423345 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you've stated it, I don't believe otherwise about those two teachings. Didn't you tell me that was where the Catholic Church was so different and superior to the church of Christ?
Now, we do practice those God's way. Basing our actions on the scriptural instructions we were given. Ex: we don't serve the Lord's Supper on Saturday, we don't sprinkle of pour and we don't baptize infants because they don't know what's going on and they cannot perform necessary requirements for being saved - repentance or confession, like that of Peter's which was the ROCK upon which the foundation of the church would be laid.
I didn't say superior. You asked which church had belief and practice akin to the Church described in scripture.

You partake in the body and blood of Christ at your services?

You just told me that you don't believe in salvific baptism. The church of scripture believed that baptsim was salvific, not that people had to agree to it for it to be salvific.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423346 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan could never find the statement that FM supposedly "put into play" because somehow magically FM had it removed maybe.
LOL, I have been given credit for this many times here.
The inner defenses are unconscious. They consist of a kind of magic aura which the mind builds around cherished belief.
Dan uses specious rationalization.
Dan is able to read and twist my words in his own mind. I deny the words and rationally ask for Dan to show us where these words are supposedly written.
Arguments which penetrate into the magic aura are not dealt with rationally but by a specific type of pseudo-reasoning.
FM supposedly wrote something, which FM cannot challenge or re-state, because no one can find where these supposed words exist.
Thus Dan is able to avoid in his mind the central point.
RCC teachings at the time of Thomas Jefferson's death would have placed Mr. Jefferson among the ranks of -- how should I put it -- the un-saved :o)
Absurdities and contradictions are made acceptable by specious rationalization and avoidance.
That FM has to supply such a windy backpedal is indicative that FM cannot inform his prior claim.
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#423347 Feb 18, 2013
At Vatican 2, the RCC apologized to Protestants -- why?

Did the RCC Catechism (the great escape that few Catholics are able to reference and quote) change between 1900 and 2000?

It is absurd to be so selective in the use of "Holy tradition."

It is absurd that something that was taught de fide 500 years ago can be magically forgotten, as if it was never taught as "perfect" or ever had centuries of real-life consequence.

Absurd, but it must be accepted.

The one-true claim is busted.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423348 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did Paul warn us in Galatians about anyone teaching anything they had not already taught?
So people wouldn't put themselves in front of scriptures-for instance, saying they have authority to interpret God's word themselves, that the Church is unnecessary for salvation, etc.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423349 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
We know the claim. It is a claim of faith, but there is so much real-world historical reality that contradicts it.
If Jesus established the RCC to teach "perfect morals" for the purpose of saving souls, why would Jesus not provide better guidance for this wonderful teacher?
Only about 5% of humanity today practices the "one-true" faith fully. Germany has lost almost 1/3 in the past 10 years alone -- and that was with a German Pope.
Jesus suffered and died for that? Who screwed up?
Or maybe your claim is absurd and the RCC is no better or worse on balance than most other Christian churches?
When Christ was actually here on Earth, a far smaller percentage of people believed in Him at all.

Christ is not "culpable" for the actions of men, FM. Men are.

Sheesh.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423350 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you read the link.
I KNOW, once again, you provided NO scripture to justify your opinion.
I need to direct you to the Great Comission?

Matt. 16:19
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423351 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
According to who?
Where's the beef?
You claim "perfect teachings on faith and morals" yet you can't even tell us which teachings are "perfect" and which are not.
For good reason that you have never considered.
According to the Bible, which is Saban's frame of reference.

Yeah, I know which Church teachings are incontrovertibly true.

Why make such a silly statement?
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423352 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ did not quote the Bible, I don't believe, as His life predicated NT scripture.
Also, although you persist in saying so to construct your argument, no Catholic denies the valildity of scripture.
He quoted many times from the scripture in my Bible. Even while he was on the cross he quoted scripture!!!

Are you really that ignorant? If so, stop typing so much and study/learn.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423353 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan could never find the statement that FM supposedly "put into play" because somehow magically FM had it removed maybe.
LOL, I have been given credit for this many times here.
The inner defenses are unconscious. They consist of a kind of magic aura which the mind builds around cherished belief.
Dan uses specious rationalization.
Dan is able to read and twist my words in his own mind. I deny the words and rationally ask for Dan to show us where these words are supposedly written.
Arguments which penetrate into the magic aura are not dealt with rationally but by a specific type of pseudo-reasoning.
FM supposedly wrote something, which FM cannot challenge or re-state, because no one can find where these supposed words exist.
Thus Dan is able to avoid in his mind the central point.
RCC teachings at the time of Thomas Jefferson's death would have placed Mr. Jefferson among the ranks of -- how should I put it -- the un-saved :o)
Absurdities and contradictions are made acceptable by specious rationalization and avoidance.
You stated that the Church "knows" who is Heaven, thus they know who isn't.

I simply asked for proof that they DO in fact tell us who isn't, and I get days of backpedal and deflection, spiced up with a few hissy fits.

"Absuridites and contradictions", "specious rationalization and avoidance" just about covers your posts in response.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423354 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say superior. You asked which church had belief and practice akin to the Church described in scripture.
You partake in the body and blood of Christ at your services?
You just told me that you don't believe in salvific baptism. The church of scripture believed that baptsim was salvific, not that people had to agree to it for it to be salvific.


And once again you present opinion rather than scripture evidence. This could only be the correct way to debate Bible in the Catholic Church since It seems evident that the church's opinion today can supersede the Holy scriptures.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423355 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
At Vatican 2, the RCC apologized to Protestants -- why?
Did the RCC Catechism (the great escape that few Catholics are able to reference and quote) change between 1900 and 2000?
It is absurd to be so selective in the use of "Holy tradition."
It is absurd that something that was taught de fide 500 years ago can be magically forgotten, as if it was never taught as "perfect" or ever had centuries of real-life consequence.
Absurd, but it must be accepted.
The one-true claim is busted.
He apologized for sins of omission and commission done in the name of the Church. Nominally, the Crusades and acts during the Inquisitions.

The Catechism did not instruct these actions done, no.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423356 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
He quoted many times from the scripture in my Bible. Even while he was on the cross he quoted scripture!!!
Are you really that ignorant? If so, stop typing so much and study/learn.
He never quoted NT scripture, as I stated.

You ARE a Christian, yes? As such, the NT IS the operative, correct?
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423357 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
So people wouldn't put themselves in front of scriptures-for instance, saying they have authority to interpret God's word themselves, that the Church is unnecessary for salvation, etc.
I never said the church was unnecessary for salvation. I believe the moment someone rises from the waters of baptism for the forgiveness of their sin (Acts 2:38) they are "in Christ" they are in the church, they are members of Christ's Kingdom, his body. They cannot be saved and avoid the church anymore than someone in Noah's day could be saved and avoid the Ark.

Why are we told to study to show ourselves approved?

Why are we warned against false teachers? So we can sit and wait for the Pope to announce that our neighbor Billy Bob down the street is false teaching that if you buy fireworks at his fireworks stand you'll go to Heaven?

Is there a polite and respectful way to warn you that you are brainwashed and following false teachings?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423358 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again you present opinion rather than scripture evidence. This could only be the correct way to debate Bible in the Catholic Church since It seems evident that the church's opinion today can supersede the Holy scriptures.
I previously cited John 6 and John 3.

Please do make an effort to keep track here, Saban.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423359 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I need to direct you to the Great Comission?
Matt. 16:19
And this scripture proves which of your opinions?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423360 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said the church was unnecessary for salvation. I believe the moment someone rises from the waters of baptism for the forgiveness of their sin (Acts 2:38) they are "in Christ" they are in the church, they are members of Christ's Kingdom, his body. They cannot be saved and avoid the church anymore than someone in Noah's day could be saved and avoid the Ark.
Why are we told to study to show ourselves approved?
Why are we warned against false teachers? So we can sit and wait for the Pope to announce that our neighbor Billy Bob down the street is false teaching that if you buy fireworks at his fireworks stand you'll go to Heaven?
Is there a polite and respectful way to warn you that you are brainwashed and following false teachings?
You're making my point for me.

If one studies to make themselves approved, you can't leave out the means for said person to know they are correct in their conclusions. The Church, given to us by Christ, provides this anchor. Otherwise, everyone decalres themselves "approved". See this board for an illustration of this. "Duelling Bibles".

If everyone is able to instruct themselves in Scripture and thus is free to affirm their personal judgement upon them, then there cannot be a "false teacher"; If everyone is free to render their own verdict upon scriptur,e without appeal to an authoritative interpretation, you get doctrinal chaos-protestantism and its offshoots.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423361 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
And this scripture proves which of your opinions?
Ministerial authority in the Church vs.'free range' interpretation of scripture.

John 6 and John 3, cited twice now by me, affirm the Real Presence in the Eucharist and salvific baptism.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423362 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
He never quoted NT scripture, as I stated.
You ARE a Christian, yes? As such, the NT IS the operative, correct?
How could he have quoted "NT" scripture?

The fact that he was replacing the old covenant while quoting and validating the prophesy in the OT, seems proof enough that it would be in his plan to record these events we have recorded for us in the NT.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423363 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
How could he have quoted "NT" scripture?
The fact that he was replacing the old covenant while quoting and validating the prophesy in the OT, seems proof enough that it would be in his plan to record these events we have recorded for us in the NT.
I have no problem with scripture having been recorded. That's how it becomes "scripture".

Jesus never stated implicity nor explicitly that scripture was to be regarded as the whole of His teaching. Even scripture itself says that it doesn't contain everything, while also relating to us that Christ established the Church to teach until His return.

That's not that hard to understand, is it? In NO WAY does this subjugate scripture nor repudiate its authority.

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 19 min LAWEST100 610,080
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 2,101
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 1 hr AlmostDied 292
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Aura Mytha 270,227
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Aura Mytha 818,787
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 1 hr fadu singh 9,265
Incest: Horny and looking for good stories :) (Nov '13) 2 hr Sexy Girl89 15
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 hr RiccardoFire 40,005
More from around the web