Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 542,537
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Nov 08

usa

#425072 Feb 28, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe 39 out of 266 Popes were married.
so who changed the rules? did god say to the church elders no more married men? or was it the made up council starting with constantine that decided married men can no longer be popes? this why the church is not what it claims to be,once written it can not be changed,isn't gods word suppose to be final? the final book writen by john was it,period,no changes allowed gods law/will was written.no one has the devine authority to change it,the C.C. can make all the false claims they want the pope is not a devine person or vicar of christ like "they" think.no where in history is it written the catholic church is THE church,there is no such thing,at least not on this planet,like god/jesus the church would be perfect and the catholic church is quite the opposite,there own history proves that.
4GVN

Jackson, MO

#425073 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".
He is clearly stating that He has been speaking spiritually, NOT litterally. COMMON SENSE would tell us that Jesus did not mean He was LITERALLY a DOOR, a VINE, a LAMB, or a LOAF OF BREAD or a GLASS of WINE.
What He clearly said was that it is the SPIRIT that gives life. Therefore it would be quite contradictory to believe that we recieve SPIRITUAL THINGS THROUGH FLESHLY RITUALS.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#425074 Feb 28, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
You, over and over, place words in my mouth I've never said and have the lack of class to call me a fraud.
I've haven't placed anything in your mouth, but am drawing conclusions from your posts. Like these:

a. You don't know anything about the religion you practice
b. You continue to make up lies about other people, just because you can't support the claims you made up.
c. The limited knowledge of your religion that you do possess, is only that which other men have provided to you.

Yep - a fraud....Oh wait....I guess we could also use what is designated in your religion's words, "a false prophet".

When you have some intelligence to post viable links and support for your claims, then respond back to me, until then, your tactic of avoiding is everclear to me and others.

Face the honesty Saban, it will make you a better person.
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
If "busted" is the term you give someone that's not willing to get in the mud hole with you, than i guess I'll be "busted" - You are King of your mind and mud hole, New Age Spiritual Leader!
No. WHen I used "bBusted" - it means I've spoiled your lie with truth, just so others are not misled.

Please try and stay focussed if you care to discuss anything with me.

Thanks for responding.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#425075 Feb 28, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I agree with what you're saying Jethro. The Cathedral of Saint Paul just spent hundreds of thousand dollars on a new pipe organ. On one hand I'm uncomfortable with that.
However, I need to understand what the Church is and what takes place inside their buildings during Mass. Then it makes a little more sense.
The Church believes that during the Liturgy of the Eucharist at the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the very presence of Jesus Christ. Heaven meets Earth on the alter and we experience the great gift of the Eucharist. This is our faith.
When I realize this, the expensive organ and beautiful music along with the enormous Dome (signifying the covenant) over looking the alter where Christ is made present......it seems a little more appropriate to welcome Our Lord this way.
But this mega church the evangelical Baptist are building in MN is for their own pleasure. All the amenities are geared towards the young and hip and for the comfort of the audience.
Its for entertainment disguised as worship towards Christ.
Its not too tough to convince a teenage Catholic kid to come over to their side. No more kneeling. No more standing (unless you feel like you wanna boogie). No more boring liturgy. No more dressing up. No more confession. And the best part, there are girls you age who's parents let them wear push-up bras to Sunday celebration. Lol.
all churches basically do the same thing,they dress to impress,draw people in,it's not about god or jesus, it's about money,do you really think god/jesus cares about a pipe organ? or fancy stained glass windows when there are thousands dying daily due to the lack of food an shelter? i doubt it,not if he is a god of love for his children,and you talk about girls who wear push-up bras to other churches,i have found that the most amorous women to bed down with are catholic,married or not.spent many a night with catholic women,one was married living with her husband and i was picking her up at her house with her husband there,she had nothing to do with him because he became a drug addict, and she was still young and wanted to have a sex life,i just happened to come along at the right time,we spent many fridays having room service and servicing each other.jewish girls are the same.they can't seem to get enough.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#425076 Feb 28, 2013
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>What He DID say was,'This do in REMEMBRANCE of me.' You don't do something in remembrance of someone who is still present with you.
You claim that Jesus is still present; (body and spirit) in the mass. In His completeness you claim that Christ is there.
Perhaps you will understand better with this illustration. Perhaps I were to tell you...'Clay, we are going to have a little get-together Friday in remebrance of you. Oh, by the way, you are invited to attend.
Well, yeah we believe that Christ is present at Mass. We believe that He can be present with us. Do you not believe this-that He can be present?

Christ and His redemption DO remain with us through time. His sacrifice was eternal, right?

The fact that we do it in remembrance of Him does acknowledge that He's not standing there in front of us in His human form.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#425077 Feb 28, 2013
GBA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd give you ten thumbs up if I could. By the way I am a convert to the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. Praise God I found my way home!
And I am a convert to the Lord Jesus Christ.Marcus Grodi of the Journey Home,always says about evangelical prots,(Jesus and Me),a philosophy of individual possession of christ as it were by non-Catholic Christians.

Such an arrogant statement from a former Presbyterian minister who relied on Calvinism to gauge his own Christian beliefs,rather than on the Lord Jesus Christ.I have watched EWTN now for over a year,and sometimes miss it for time reasons or because I am working.But it is always the same the believer finds Christ in Evangelical circles but later he or she finds completeness in the RCC.Oh of course the Authority as well.It has all been hashed over.

But the truth is GBA that if you are converted to a church or religious system that does not mean you have been converted to Christ,and that applies to all affiliations within Christianity.

Christ is God in the flesh,but NOW He is at the right hand of His Father in glory.He sent the Holy Spirit down to us here on earth,to convict of sin,and to teach literally the truths and revelations of the Son of God.Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God,and Jesus told him that "Flesh and blood did not reveal that to you,but the Holy Spirit did."

The fact remains only the Holy Spirit can reveal the true and living Christ to a soul,which is not done by human effort or ingenuity,but by the Will of the Father.

Our conversion is complete in the Godhead(Father,Son and Holy Spirit),not a church denomination or system.To Come Home is to be transformed by the power of the living God in your life,not to be convinced by a sophisticated formula of beliefs,traditions and practices.

The trouble with church conversion is that it causes one to have a relationship with a system,a philosophy,NOT a Person.Regardless of what church one belongs to,that particular church should in fact be as a brother or sister to the believer,not the governing,totalitarian GUIDE,but as even like a help meeet,both the believer and the church on equal standing longing to please and live for the Master the Lord Jesus Christ.

We all are the church,and responsible for our actions before God.EVERY believer will be accountable before God,There is no C h u r c h that will represent you in heaven before G o d,because you already will be the church that stands next to Jesus for the greatest wedding ceremony ever recorded in the history of life.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#425078 Feb 28, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question.
On what basis do you declare John 6 to be metaphorical?
Do you have a basis to show that it isn't?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#425079 Feb 28, 2013
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>He is clearly stating that He has been speaking spiritually, NOT litterally. COMMON SENSE would tell us that Jesus did not mean He was LITERALLY a DOOR, a VINE, a LAMB, or a LOAF OF BREAD or a GLASS of WINE.
What He clearly said was that it is the SPIRIT that gives life. Therefore it would be quite contradictory to believe that we recieve SPIRITUAL THINGS THROUGH FLESHLY RITUALS.
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.
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.

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) 5 min Innocent Holy dr ... 601,092
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min waaasssuuup 739,549
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Eagle 12 227,519
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 11 min Johnny 3,096
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 16 min JudgeNJury 259,513
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 39 min Roger Paul 848
These Honorable Men 45 min Carla34 7
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr well 95,508
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 4 hr Joana 150

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••