Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 543,289
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
Dan

Omaha, NE

#425080 Feb 28, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a basis to show that it isn't?
Yeah.

His repetition of the teaching coupled with the subtext of the grumbling of some hearing it. He was emphatic.

That and the belief and tradition of the early Church where they believed in the Real Presence.

to my knowledge, the Reformation was the first time that the idea that it was "symbolic" came into any kind of widespread promulgation.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#425081 Feb 28, 2013
The confusion of Christianity....

Clay wrote initially:
The bread used at mass is just bread, until the prayers of the Priest - which repeat the words of Jesus Christ - "THIS IS my body....do THIS in memory of me" are performed, then it becomes the Eucharist, which according to Jesus Christ, is Him.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. Therefore, its appropriate that Mary would also be the Mother of The Eucharist (Jesus Christ).
**********

Saban wanted to clarify, so he wrote:
It's symbolism Clay. He's the door too, but He's made of wood, we don't knock on Him and he doesn't have hinges. It's symbolism. Participating in the Lord's Supper on "the first day of the week" is a memorial, not the real body, not the real blood. The church is the body.
**********

Dan didn't want to be left out, so he wrote:
He (Christ) didn't say it was a memorial, though.

He repeated the teaching several times and didn't clarify as to it being symbolic even when followers grumbled and departed.

This is where we Catholics get very confused. "Bible alone" protestants have built an entire theology out of one line in Timothy, yet they work very hard to deny Christ's very clear teaching in John about the Eucharist. It's perhaps Christ's most emphatic teaching, yet we are to believe that He was being allegorical or whatever, even when He recognized that His followers were having a hard time following His message and some were leaving?

That's a tough, tough sell, Saban.
**********

In which Oxbow then jumped in with:
Oxbow wrote:
047
He also said: Mt 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Know anybody whom have lobbed off their right hand because it offended them????!!!!
Hello!!!!!

And then "Dan", to show his confusion, decided to mix it up a little and divert from Matt to John, to discuss the feeding of the multitudes. Probably to show that there was no symbolism in this either, but in turn probably is trying to show that the "miracle" occurred, and was not symbolism....
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question.
On what basis do you declare John 6 to be metaphorical?
But in truth - it is still "metaphorical", as it goes very well with what I posted earlier about the mustard seed.

(20)

(1) The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us whom the kingdom of heaven is like!"
(2) He said to them: "It is like a mustard seed.
(3) <It> is the smallest of all seeds.
(4) But when it falls on cultivated soil, it produces a large branch
(and) becomes shelter for the birds of the sky."

He planted his words (the mustard seed is symbolized in GoJohn by the fish and bread) into the minds of his followers (the "multitude" in GoJohn), and in GoThomas (the "cultivated soil"), and when he was finished, they were filled and even had an over abundance of leftovers (the 12 baskets)- also represented in GoThomas as "a large branch" that became "shelter" for the birds of the sky (people of this spiritual faith).

You really should try to apply Jesus' teachings to yourself, instead of always thinking that others are trying to change your belief. You should expand upon it.
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#425082 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No-He repeated the teaching verbatim several times despite the grumbling and departure of some of the assemblage. It would indeed be "contradictory" for Christ to deliberately be obtuse as to put off His followers.
RE: receipt of spiritual gifts via ritual-
You ascribe spiritual things to Baptism, I assume. It's a "fleshly" ritual.
Consider that the patristic writers were debating this for a few hundred years.

But in the end, it's faith and nothing but faith.

Sure, the RCC claims through "approved" miracles to have actual blood and heart tissue from Jesus. So all this could be cleared up tomorrow if the RCC saw fit to conduct modern testing on these samples.

BTW, they famously did so in the early 1970s. They were able to confirm that one approved miracle was indeed human heart tissue.

But they are strangely quiet in the era of DNA and other forensic tests

We both know the reason.

Today, it would only prove fraud.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#425083 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
This renders the prior moot?
Makes it disappear?
Don't think so. This isn't Christ saying "forget all that stuff from a minute ago-I was speaking metaphorically".
Jesus in Chapter six of John's gospel is talking to a J E W I S H audience,or maybe some might think He is talking to a bunch of Roman Catholics?

Of course not! The Passover was soon to be held in Jerusalem,and our Lord KNEW,He was going to suffer and die for all of humanity.

The L a m b is the key here,and the Passover will be that feast when the JEWS remember the Death Angel who bypassed the Hebrews who had on their houses the Lamb's blood.(In Egypt).

What is Jesus telling to a crowd of his own disciples and even members of the Pharisees or Sanhedrin,and other Jews present?

The Roman Catholic transubstantiation? Sorry,not in the least. But that He prophetically would be that L a m b that very Passover to die for the sins of all humanity.Prophetic utterance is not usually the exact words for the occasion of what the event will be.Jesus spoke of a sort of cannabalism,because He knew that the L a m b which was slain in the Jewish Temple was eaten by the Jewish priests after it was slain.He knew that the blood of that creature was spread over all the Jews present to watch the sacrifice.

Would not the Jews present in Chapter 6 of John be offended as well if Jesus spoke to them about Him being the Lamb,and the Romans would be the knife that would slash his throat,and the hand holding the knife would be the high priest of the sanhedrin?Think about it.

John Chapter 6 is not a precursor to transubstantiation,but a prophetic utterance by the Lord Jesus to the Jews of His being the final lamb killed in the Temple for the sins of humanity.REMEMBER prophesies are not always given the exact details of what will happen.But in the case of Jesus he spoke of what Israel basically would be doing after He the Lamb would be slain.They would be eating His flesh and His blood.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#425084 Feb 28, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
___
LAY, n.[L. locus. See Lay, the verb. The words which signify place, are from verbs which express setting or laying. It is written also ley, and lea, but less properly.]
Pertaining to the laity or people, as distinct from the clergy; not clerical; as a lay person; a lay preacher; a lay brother.
Layman
LAY' MAN, n. la'man.[lay and man.]
1. A man who is not a clergyman; one of the laity or people, distinct from the clergy.
thanks!

what's a 'clergy'? there's not a hint of the idea found in the New Covenant/Testament!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#425085 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
His repetition of the teaching coupled with the subtext of the grumbling of some hearing it. He was emphatic.
That and the belief and tradition of the early Church where they believed in the Real Presence.
to my knowledge, the Reformation was the first time that the idea that it was "symbolic" came into any kind of widespread promulgation.
Your opinion is the basis? Or is there a citation that you can provide that supports yoru opinion?

By now you should have already read my previous post....soooo....in retort - your version doesn't fit with Jesus' teachings.

FYI - Jesus taught in parables to the uninformed.....

You do understand that parables is symbolism made into a story, right?

But you are a Catholic, and have yet to discern anything Jesus taught, because no one told you to believe that way.

I understand.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#425086 Feb 28, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider that the patristic writers were debating this for a few hundred years.
But in the end, it's faith and nothing but faith.
Sure, the RCC claims through "approved" miracles to have actual blood and heart tissue from Jesus. So all this could be cleared up tomorrow if the RCC saw fit to conduct modern testing on these samples.
BTW, they famously did so in the early 1970s. They were able to confirm that one approved miracle was indeed human heart tissue.
But they are strangely quiet in the era of DNA and other forensic tests
We both know the reason.
Today, it would only prove fraud.
The belief in the Real Presence certainly is an article of faith, so declaring this as such and then making a forensics-based argument against it seems self-contradictory here, FM.

I mean, one side of the street or the other.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#425087 Feb 28, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a quote from Garry O'Sullivan -- Managing Director of 'The Irish Catholic.'(I gave the link a couple of times in adjacent posts.)
That's how those crazy Irish and Brits write. Somebody needs to teach them proper English.
As for no hint in the Bible, I believe the writer was simply referring to historical fact, as recorded by some of the earliest patristic writers - or Ante-Nicene Fathers.
By the time the Bible was cobbled together a few hundred years later, the RCC had become clergycentric. It bore little resemblance to the earliest church -- before Constantine and Romafication.
(More new words. It's your day!)
thanks!

i'm just having fun with my ROMAN catholic friends & ROMAN catholic influenced protestant friends, who don't know enough to totally renounce the satanic influences of ROMAN PAGANISM:)
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#425088 Feb 28, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you're sincere in your thanks, but I'll take it anyway.
My opinion on why the Lord would require statehood, a bank, and diplomatic immunity for His Church:
First of all, if the CC is His Church (and I believe it is) then its deserving of more than the 3 things you stated.
Statehood: throughout their 2,000 yr history, the Church has been attempted to be infiltrated by every tyrant this world has produced. No one - not even the Roman Empire could accomplish this feat.
Bank: every country, kingdom, church, military, school and athletic organizations have their own system of banking. The CC is no different. They own more real estate than anyone just based on the square lots their buildings sit on. If its Christ's Church, then Wells Fargo has no business owning a piece of the land or the buildings that sit on it.
Diplomatic immunity: Why would you take issue with this?
I'm not sure if all countries give diplomatic immunity to Vatican officials, but if they give it to Barak Obama and his cabinet, then the least they could do is give it to the head of Jesus Christs Church on Earth and its Bishops.
Actually Clay, I was sincere. It appears that someone was helping you write some good posts.

But obviously they didn't help you with this one.

How does a bank and statehood help the RCC avoid the infiltrators -- of which I doubt if you can name one example.

Equating the church bank with banking by schools, military, etc. is completely lame.

No need to go on. You should avoid posting without your helper.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#425089 Feb 28, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus in Chapter six of John's gospel is talking to a J E W I S H audience,or maybe some might think He is talking to a bunch of Roman Catholics?
Of course not! The Passover was soon to be held in Jerusalem,and our Lord KNEW,He was going to suffer and die for all of humanity.
The L a m b is the key here,and the Passover will be that feast when the JEWS remember the Death Angel who bypassed the Hebrews who had on their houses the Lamb's blood.(In Egypt).
What is Jesus telling to a crowd of his own disciples and even members of the Pharisees or Sanhedrin,and other Jews present?
The Roman Catholic transubstantiation? Sorry,not in the least. But that He prophetically would be that L a m b that very Passover to die for the sins of all humanity.Prophetic utterance is not usually the exact words for the occasion of what the event will be.Jesus spoke of a sort of cannabalism,because He knew that the L a m b which was slain in the Jewish Temple was eaten by the Jewish priests after it was slain.He knew that the blood of that creature was spread over all the Jews present to watch the sacrifice.
Would not the Jews present in Chapter 6 of John be offended as well if Jesus spoke to them about Him being the Lamb,and the Romans would be the knife that would slash his throat,and the hand holding the knife would be the high priest of the sanhedrin?Think about it.
John Chapter 6 is not a precursor to transubstantiation,but a prophetic utterance by the Lord Jesus to the Jews of His being the final lamb killed in the Temple for the sins of humanity.REMEMBER prophesies are not always given the exact details of what will happen.But in the case of Jesus he spoke of what Israel basically would be doing after He the Lamb would be slain.They would be eating His flesh and His blood.
I don't think so. He was teaching us that we are to partake of Him for our salvation.
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#425090 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church did not impose statehood upon itself, did not invoke diplomatic immunity upon itself and what would you suggest it do with money it has? Place it under a mattress, or...?
Is statehood, diplomatic immunity and banking somehow intrinsically bad now, or what?
Yes, for a church I believe it is bad. And you first sentence is absurd at best. Unless you believe it was forced upon them by Saint Mussolini?

Again, why did Jesus attack the money-changers in the Temple? Was that completely meaningless?

Many of the problems the church faces today can be traced to trying to be both Caesar and an instrument of God.

I doubt if Ireland would have been forced to break diplomatic relations for a period of time, were it not for that confusion.

Oops, sorry I forgot. Ireland is anti-catholic too, right?

lol
Dan

Omaha, NE

#425091 Feb 28, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, for a church I believe it is bad. And you first sentence is absurd at best. Unless you believe it was forced upon them by Saint Mussolini?
Again, why did Jesus attack the money-changers in the Temple? Was that completely meaningless?
Many of the problems the church faces today can be traced to trying to be both Caesar and an instrument of God.
I doubt if Ireland would have been forced to break diplomatic relations for a period of time, were it not for that confusion.
Oops, sorry I forgot. Ireland is anti-catholic too, right?
lol
Why is it bad, inherently?

Jesus didn't attack them because they banked.

They have resources-they run things and it takes money to do it. Again, how should they handle their money?

What's this about Ireland? Didn't follow you.
Clay

United States

#425092 Feb 28, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Clay, I was sincere. It appears that someone was helping you write some good posts.
But obviously they didn't help you with this one.
How does a bank and statehood help the RCC avoid the infiltrators -- of which I doubt if you can name one example.
Equating the church bank with banking by schools, military, etc. is completely lame.
No need to go on. You should avoid posting without your helper.
Statehood and a bank and all other things afforded to nations on Earth should also be afforded to the Church. Why not? Are we supposed to rely on Wells Fargo to do our banking for us?
Statehood is essential to legitimize the Church in the political arena is all I'm saying... To give them diplomatic rights and recognition.(just ask the Palestinians on the importance of statehood)
why shouldn't the Church that Christ started be recognized as a legitimate body by every nation on the planet? Its the least they could do for the Son of God - who died for every single one of them.

Oh, and my writer and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Lol
Clay

United States

#425093 Feb 28, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's symbolism Clay. He's the door too, but He's made of wood, we don't knock on Him and he doesn't have hinges. It's symbolism. Participating in the Lord's Supper on "the first day of the week" is a memorial, not the real body, not the real blood. The church is the body.
Yes Saban, I'm aware that you think its just a symbol.
The problem of course, is that no Christian group prior to 1600 AD taught this.
This fact is all the more baffling why you think your church of Christ was the first one from the beginning.

Even more baffling, is you appear to think that the Apostles forgot to explain this stuff...
Or they did, but the people got it all screwed up.

This is why its helpful for non Catholics to look to the writings of the disciples of The Apostles, to get a better understanding of what was actually TAUGHT. Otherwise you're just relying on Harold Camping and 50,000 other self proclaimed authorities.
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#425094 Feb 28, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again hojo.
I've never interpretted the Bible. Where are you getting this from?
So when you read the bible then you are "just reading words", is that right!!!! It is "impossible" to read something and not draw specific meaning or conclusions to what you have read!! If you are not discerning,understanding, interpreting or comprehending its meaning, then you are again "just reading words"! The bible does not, nor cannot "interpret itself"---You continue to "deceive yourself as you "attempt" deceive others, New Age!!!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#425095 Feb 28, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you read the bible then you are "just reading words", is that right!!!! It is "impossible" to read something and not draw specific meaning or conclusions to what you have read!! If you are not discerning,understanding, interpreting or comprehending its meaning, then you are again "just reading words"! The bible does not, nor cannot "interpret itself"---You continue to "deceive yourself as you "attempt" deceive others, New Age!!!
Considering you keep saying that any "sole interpretation" is a heresy, then not one human has the capacity to discern the Bible - based upon your own words above. That means no man has the capacity to do such a feat to interpret these words.

But you will disagree and promote that certain men were "guided by the HS" - without any proof, but jsut more words by men.

You are very gullible.

And no - I do not just "read the words". I understand them.

Unlike you, when you think only the "RED WORDS" are the ones you try to understand.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#425096 Feb 28, 2013
065
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
But, you ARE able to make these distinctions-even though your post is an uncredited paste of someone else's writing?
My God given gift to be able to make those distinctions is not connected...in anyway...to the source of the info I posted...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#425097 Feb 28, 2013
047
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question.
On what basis do you declare John 6 to be metaphorical?
Have I declared Chapter 6 of John to be metaphorical?????
preston

Waverly, OH

#425098 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The belief in the Real Presence certainly is an article of faith, so declaring this as such and then making a forensics-based argument against it seems self-contradictory here, FM.
I mean, one side of the street or the other.
so wher have you been? I havent forgot that you said that YOU HAD PROVED that no jail was at that catholic church.

you sir are the lowest of lowly, time after time you make your stupid statment that you have proved your case, yet when all is said and done, you PROVE NOTHING!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#425099 Feb 28, 2013
What about it Dan????

047

He also said: Mt 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Know anybody whom have lobbed off their right hand because it offended them????!!!!
Hello!!!!!

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
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 11 min dirty white boy- 33,054
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min dirty white boy- 740,720
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 41 min Rosa_Winkel 441,344
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 46 min Rosa_Winkel 95,562
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 47 min HipGnosis 173,909
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 48 min Rosa_Winkel 227,992
FACEBOOK versus TOPIX 51 min Yeppers 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Dr_Zorderz 259,771
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 9 hr Joana 158

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••