Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 600141 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.

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.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423364 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I previously cited John 6 and John 3.
Please do make an effort to keep track here, Saban.
You cited those scriptures for which of your positions? Please make an effort to elaborate, Dan, so someone working on a house, outside, can use their iPhone to keep up. I don't have the luxury of time or laptop ease to go back two or three posts, sometimes more when its Dan, to know what was being discussed.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423365 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.
NT scripture is where we locate Christ's teachings. I consider that worthy of my extra attention in a discussion of Christian faith.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423366 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Wrong. Scripture alone can point out the false teachers.

Not following scripture alone creates the chaos in the world of denominations.

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 Dave Nelson 865,733
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 7 min Great Day of Arma... 33,186
30+ ladies ka sex 12 min Aarav_dlycan 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 15 min Charlie Sheen 272,426
The Christian Atheist debate 20 min Rowan 2,052
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 20 min janeebee 6,546
skype sex id luv to try it (Aug '13) 45 min santyy9261 192
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 12 hr cute94 465
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 21 hr Victoria Bologna 7,504
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 22 hr andy 45
More from around the web