Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 691985 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.

Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#437711 May 4, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
Hello Friends.
I will be posting, but I make it clear that I will neither read nor respond to any Catholic Posts here. Since none has the courage to act as an individual but all herd together like dogs when one attacks, I believe I am justified in linking them all together. They lie, twist what is said, insult, verbally abuse. change history, and demean others with arrogance. No dialogue with them is ever fruitful. I do not cast aspersions on Catholicism but do on these Catholics here for their behavior. They bring shame on their Church.
I hope you read this Herme;

Nothing said here by any Catholic was as offensive as our Church being called an abortion. Most, including me, reacted to that insult very negatively. I think it was the one and only time I've had confrontational exchanges with you or your wife. If you perceive that as pack of dogs attacking you and your wife, as lying and twisting what is said, I think you're being unrealistic and a bit dramatic. I, for one, think your comments here reflect poorly on Orthodoxy, and I can assure you that the Orthodox I know would be horrfied at that kind of comment.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437712 May 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats cute Kay. But my point is that the Catholic Church belongs to Christ Jesus and His Apostles were killed while establishing it.
So Jesus a Jew established the Catholic church???

That would mean Jesus was a traitor to his own religion, as Protestants are traitors to the Catholic religion.

You people choose to mess with your own brains by belonging to these cults.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#437713 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="June VanDerMark"
You will learn that from me you will HAVE to take NO for an answer.
Do you want me to send a Jehovah's Witness to your home, bible in hand?
Is that enough of a threat for you?
:)
**********
I can take Jehovah's Witnesses.
KM
How? Jehovahs are using Sola Scripture to debunk your Sola Scripture. You can't deny them their 'right' to figure out their own religion, just like the Pentecostals did!

Its like the game of tic tac toe. When Protestants beat each other over the head with scripture verses, there are no winners.

Its basically a free-for-all. There is no authority to determine who's interpretations are correct under the false doctrine of 'scripture alone'.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437714 May 4, 2013
According to Catholic theologians ... Jesus came to earth, sent by a Jewish god, with the specific intention of starting a Catholic religion.

And Catholics believe it to be based on nothing but the truth.

AMAZING!
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437715 May 4, 2013
From the book “Twisted Scriptures,” by Mary Alice Chrnalogar, published in 1997.

Tricks to Keep You Controlled

Leaders get you to believe that they don’t interpret the Bible but just “teach what is in the Bible”—making the Bible synonymous with their interpretations.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437716 May 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
"So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!"
I didn't see KM getting drunk or humiliating those who have nothing, the reasons listed for people to get sick or die
when taking communion.
First the subject was her telling us that we were claiming that our human bodies would live forever. I posted the scripture that clearly refuted her empty, erroneous and deceptive claim by isolating and wrongly dividing the word. Thanks for the acknowledgement of her lies as always your record of never admitting you are wrong and being wrong is in tact.

Second, St Paul asks, "Is this not the body of Christ?" Is this not the blood of Christ?" Did not Jesus say you must eat my flesh and drink my blood? You have interpreted it differently then the successors of the Apostles who were taught by them. You profane it, you mock and trivialize it. As I showed you and you ignored it was to make present in the language of the times. You still act like the Jews. It is spiritual food. Various protestants claim different things, but Jesus did not say you must eat the KJV which will be produced by a homosexual king and you must read it and do whatever you think it says.

Now Paul was chastizing them for their disunity and selfishness. Not unlike a protestan ordering up a latte at grapejuice time and telling jokes or no need to partake let alone worthily. Paul warns of partaking unworthily. What would be the difference for a symbolic snack? Paul is saying their is no jew, gentile, black, white, asian. We are all one in Christ who is with us. Protestants are far from being one. Christ is the paschal lamb. The sacrifice was eaten. Paul did as the Lord commanded and I dont think the Apostles were ordering up food or saying naw not today. Sorry Marge but people werent getting sick and dying symbolically. If you believed upon the Lord you would follow his teachings not those of your choosing. He founded a chuch not an invisible body of people preaching every wave of doctrine of their own choosing.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#437717 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Anthony MN"
Question: If the earliest Christians who were taught by the apostles, passed on their teaching, copied and preserved their writings (the NT) and all believed as the Catholic Church teaches, why do today's protestants insist they know the scriptures better 2000 years later?
**********
Because we read the New Testament, NOT THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM.
KayMarie
Because you read the NT 2000 years later (which, BTW, you have only because of the Catholics who copied, preserved and protected them for centuries), you have a better understanding of it than those who heard the preaching of the gospel from the mouths of the apostles and who wrote down and passed on what they meant? I don't think so Kay.

Example: In the NT, Jesus said the bread and wine are His body and blood, He said you must eat and drink of His body and blood to have eternal life. All of the disciples of the apostles said this was to be taken literally and the Sacrifice of the Mass is the manifestation of this command.

2000 years later, you read the NT and say "Nope, they're wrong."

Who is more reliable?
Regina

Lakewood, NJ

#437718 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Anthony MN"
Question: If the earliest Christians who were taught by the apostles, passed on their teaching, copied and preserved their writings (the NT) and all believed as the Catholic Church teaches, why do today's protestants insist they know the scriptures better 2000 years later?
**********
Because we read the New Testament, NOT THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM.
KayMarie
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#I
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

;)
marge

Leesburg, GA

#437719 May 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
But why doesn't your interpretations jive with the men who walked alongside the Apostles?
Why would you trust second-hand interpretations when we already have it straight from the Apostles?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#437720 May 4, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
First the subject was her telling us that we were claiming that our human bodies would live forever. I posted the scripture that clearly refuted her empty, erroneous and deceptive claim by isolating and wrongly dividing the word. Thanks for the acknowledgement of her lies as always your record of never admitting you are wrong and being wrong is in tact.
Second, St Paul asks, "Is this not the body of Christ?" Is this not the blood of Christ?" Did not Jesus say you must eat my flesh and drink my blood? You have interpreted it differently then the successors of the Apostles who were taught by them. You profane it, you mock and trivialize it. As I showed you and you ignored it was to make present in the language of the times. You still act like the Jews. It is spiritual food. Various protestants claim different things, but Jesus did not say you must eat the KJV which will be produced by a homosexual king and you must read it and do whatever you think it says.
Now Paul was chastizing them for their disunity and selfishness. Not unlike a protestan ordering up a latte at grapejuice time and telling jokes or no need to partake let alone worthily. Paul warns of partaking unworthily. What would be the difference for a symbolic snack? Paul is saying their is no jew, gentile, black, white, asian. We are all one in Christ who is with us. Protestants are far from being one. Christ is the paschal lamb. The sacrifice was eaten. Paul did as the Lord commanded and I dont think the Apostles were ordering up food or saying naw not today. Sorry Marge but people werent getting sick and dying symbolically. If you believed upon the Lord you would follow his teachings not those of your choosing. He founded a chuch not an invisible body of people preaching every wave of doctrine of their own choosing.
"Jesus did not say you must eat the KJV which will be produced by a homosexual king and you must read it and do whatever you think it says. "

ROTFLOL!
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437721 May 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you trust second-hand interpretations when we already have it straight from the Apostles?
Gee, I don't know. Why would Paul tell Timothy to remember what you have learned and from whom you have learned it? Why would they teach and appoint others? Why would they say to hold fast to the Tradition you have been taught in letters or by word of mouth? Why on earth did people within bible become confused at what was written? Why dont the 40,000 Protestant denominations and each individual within them who hold their personal truth have the same interpretation? Why did Jesus say a divided house cannot stand? Why on earth would Scripture say to obey those who are over you and do not give them grief for it would be unprofitable for you? How could any Christian have been possibly saved if they didnt believe or practice as you without a revised KJV bible?

Why didnt Jesus give them a book (in every language no leass) and say pass this out and as long as people believe I existed they are saved? Nobody is really in charge in Protestantland. You all gave yourselves personal permission to interpret it of your own accord. Have you never had any influence from any Protestant preacher? How can you ask why when since the Church got everything wrong it surely must have picked the wrong books too. Oh wait, you never responded to my refutation of your lie that all protestants never denied any of the NT books. Good one! So many Protestants to choose from. Good for an itching ear.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#437722 May 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you trust second-hand interpretations when we already have it straight from the Apostles?
The apostles recorded Christ's words,
"You must eat My flesh and drink My blood."
"This is My body, this is My blood."

You say "Nope, just a symbol"

St. Ignatius was taught by St. John and ordained by St. Peter. He said the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

You say "Nope, he's just a second-hand interpreter. He probably didn't have a KJV. I know better because 2000 years later I read it and decide it's just symbolic."

Dan

Omaha, NE

#437723 May 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is it, Paul believed in the real presense or Paul believed that consecrating the bread and wine turned it into the real presense?
Both.

He knew that it wasn't simply bread (as you believe) rather bread which becomes His body (as Christ taught).
Dan

Omaha, NE

#437724 May 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
A 'works' gospel may be controversial to you but it's a plain old false gospel to me, since Salvation is a gift.
You believe that one is saved if they proclaim their belief (i.e. a work).

Salvation IS a gift. Can you tell me why your theology rejects the Eucharist-a gift of Christ?
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437725 May 4, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The apostles recorded Christ's words,
"You must eat My flesh and drink My blood."
"This is My body, this is My blood."
You say "Nope, just a symbol"
St. Ignatius was taught by St. John and ordained by St. Peter. He said the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.
You say "Nope, he's just a second-hand interpreter. He probably didn't have a KJV. I know better because 2000 years later I read it and decide it's just symbolic."
Religion is ALL symbolic nonsense created by men.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#437726 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Dan"
You all don't believe that you partake in Christ at the Eucharist.
Did you just consign yourself to the nether regions here, Kay?
**********
My faith is in Christ. I receive the communion BECAUSE I trust/obey Him. I do not believe that the bread and wine are how I 'receive' Him. If I did, I would have to receive enough of it to satisfy me...not just a taste/sip.
He is not in the nether regions, and I WILL BE WITH HIM where He is.
KayMarie
You don't have to believe in Christ to eat bread.

All you're doing is eating bread. If you actually DID trust/obey Him, you'd believe it is Him you're receiving.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437727 May 4, 2013
Rituals created by superstition can equate to concepts of truth ... which is what occurred. But concepts of truth ought to be subjects of lies on which they "rest their cases."
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437728 May 4, 2013
Toronto pastors charged with bilking church members of millions

Toronto - The three pastors, a man and two women, face numerous charges for allegedly defrauding their congregants, family and friends out of $8.6 million in a Ponzi scheme.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/349450#...

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#437729 May 4, 2013
who="Clay"
But why doesn't your interpretations jive with the men who walked alongside the Apostles?

**********

Because my interpretation 'jives' with the Apostles themselves.

KayMarie
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#437730 May 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you trust second-hand interpretations when we already have it straight from the Apostles?
Yeah 'straight from the Apostles'.. but for some reason, Marge doesn't think 'this is my Body'; 'you must eat my flesh'; 'the Body and Blood of the Lord'; 'Upon THIS Rock' are not straight enough?

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 49 min Drumpf Disaster 46,227
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 2 hr Johnny 388
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Aura Mytha 990,681
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr exposingm0r0ns 6,707
Jeffreys: Evangelicals will vote for Moore 4 hr whatever 6
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr Dec 2017 News 445,848
__POPE & ISRAEL to SIGN Historic Agreement__ 5 hr True Reporter 3
More from around the web