Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 574,347
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
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.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423367 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
NT scripture is where we locate Christ's teachings. I consider that worthy of my extra attention in a discussion of Christian faith.
Sanctimonious answer for a question that wasn't asked.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423368 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanctimonious answer for a question that wasn't asked.
Why are you only "distracted" when I offer scriptural citation?

iPhone on the blink?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423369 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Scripture alone can point out the false teachers.
Not following scripture alone creates the chaos in the world of denominations.
"Scripture alone" has informed the false teacher.

How now to "point out" the false teacher, since he uses the same instrument to inform himself and has concluded differently?

"Scripture alone" is the father of chaos.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423370 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Third time:

The Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist (John 6) and salvific baptism (John 3).
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#423371 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thank you Dan. That is not what I have read however.

"It apologized for contributing to Christian disunity and the mistakes made during the Counter-Reformation."

http://www.netplaces.com/catholicism/moderniz...

Crusades, Inquisitions? I didn't realize. Please post links. Thanks.

Otherwise, WHAT Catechism are you talking about?

Today's Catechism, or the Catechism as written in 1826?

There bare some BIG differences in those "perfect teachings" that you rationalize away.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423372 Feb 18, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Scripture alone can point out the false teachers.
Not following scripture alone creates the chaos in the world of denominations.
Scripture doesn't interpret itself.

You just said that study is required. Thus, it requires an interpreter.

I agree with this-divinely inspired text requires divinely inspired interpretation.

You agree with it also. You regard the canon of the Bible as sacred scripture. The Church declared the canon of the Bible.
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#423373 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Scripture alone" has informed the false teacher.
How now to "point out" the false teacher, since he uses the same instrument to inform himself and has concluded differently?
"Scripture alone" is the father of chaos.
"... for ye shall know them by their deeds."

Let's see? Start with the RCC's Jesus palace, financed largely through the sale of indulgences, adorned with gold stolen from and mined by Indian slaves.

Were those really the wishes of Jesus?

Did Jesus really use -- Bonito Mussolini -- to empower the Church, so that later it could use that power to avoid justice for sexually-abuse orphans and deaf children?

That's what some people would call "rationalization."

Dude, even you must believe God is greater than that.

"... for ye shall know them by their deeds" makes perfect sense.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423374 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Dan. That is not what I have read however.
"It apologized for contributing to Christian disunity and the mistakes made during the Counter-Reformation."
http://www.netplaces.com/catholicism/moderniz...
Crusades, Inquisitions? I didn't realize. Please post links. Thanks.
Otherwise, WHAT Catechism are you talking about?
Today's Catechism, or the Catechism as written in 1826?
There bare some BIG differences in those "perfect teachings" that you rationalize away.
Just google "John Paul II apology" and you'll get some info.

What 1826 Catechism are you referring to?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423375 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
"... for ye shall know them by their deeds."
Let's see? Start with the RCC's Jesus palace, financed largely through the sale of indulgences, adorned with gold stolen from and mined by Indian slaves.
Were those really the wishes of Jesus?
Did Jesus really use -- Bonito Mussolini -- to empower the Church, so that later it could use that power to avoid justice for sexually-abuse orphans and deaf children?
That's what some people would call "rationalization."
Dude, even you must believe God is greater than that.
"... for ye shall know them by their deeds" makes perfect sense.
FM-

Get serious.

I mean, I'll answer questions, but I';m not going to dissect Jack Chick tracts with you.

It's "Benito" and that treaty didn't "empower" the church.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423376 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Dan. That is not what I have read however.
"It apologized for contributing to Christian disunity and the mistakes made during the Counter-Reformation."
http://www.netplaces.com/catholicism/moderniz...
Crusades, Inquisitions? I didn't realize. Please post links. Thanks.
Otherwise, WHAT Catechism are you talking about?
Today's Catechism, or the Catechism as written in 1826?
There bare some BIG differences in those "perfect teachings" that you rationalize away.
News piece you may find helpful. It doesn't actually have a assumptive persecutorial base, but you may still find it useful.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/1...
Justice

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#423377 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Third time:
The Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist (John 6) and salvific baptism (John 3).
lol. These hard core anti-Catholics hate to be reminded that they have taken a pair of scissors to John's gospel.
Justice

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#423378 Feb 18, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
i AM NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AS YOU CATHOLIC'S ARE..
.. GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
I DON'T ADD WORSHIP OF MARY...
I believe typing in caps is the equivalent of shouting?

You have some strange opinions about Catholics, taken from anti-catholic websites? Have you read the other side of the debate, how Catholics justify their beliefs?
Justice

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#423379 Feb 18, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Only about 5% of humanity today practices the "one-true" faith fully. Germany has lost almost 1/3 in the past 10 years
Fsith in growing in Africa, South America and Asia. It is declining in Europe and North American. Christian numbers continue to grow. We are just ignorant of the success outside of the West.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#423380 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Scripture doesn't interpret itself.
You just said that study is required. Thus, it requires an interpreter.
I agree with this-divinely inspired text requires divinely inspired interpretation.
You agree with it also. You regard the canon of the Bible as sacred scripture. The Church declared the canon of the Bible.
It does interpret itself. With study, there is no biblical issue you cannot find clarity for with other scripture. That is the beauty of the inspiration. If it were inspired why should I need continued "inspired" people to tell me what it says.

You guys have a layer of middle management and bureaucracy that God never intended to be in the church. This is the whole point!!!!

Apostasy!
Dan

Omaha, NE

#423381 Feb 18, 2013
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>
lol. These hard core anti-Catholics hate to be reminded that they have taken a pair of scissors to John's gospel.
It's the illogical that kills me.

You can't proclaim be "scripture alone" by disavowing the Church or the sacrament of the Eucharist. It's antitheical on its face.

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) 8 min Epiphany2 608,270
10 good tips to lose weight easily 46 min diettips 1
Weight Watchers diet: how to lose weight? 48 min diettips 1
How to Copy DVD to Computer / PC / Hard Drive? 51 min lydiawang 1
hi 1 hr Mantu 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Joe fortuna 810,347
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr KiMare 97,908
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 hr RADEKT 269,038
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 10 hr Jon 19
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) Wed viky235 164
More from around the web