Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 650029 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.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437703 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
Because we read the New Testament, NOT THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM.
KayMarie
You can't read anything in the "original" new testament that was not first compiled by Catholics. So by studying and believing in what they wrote as truth, you are a Catholic ... like it or not.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#437704 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
But why doesn't your interpretations jive with the men who walked alongside the Apostles?

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437705 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
I can take Jehovah's Witnesses.
KM
Where would you like to take them? Up on that high mountain ... at your level of knowledge???

:)

My guess is "NO!" You have lots of preaching yet to them in order for them to be as pristine as you perceive is YOU "in the flesh, AND more important ... in the "DIVINE SPIRIT."

:)
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437706 May 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
- "I would far rather hear of a rival to my throne than another Bishop of Rome"
Emperor Decius upon executing Pope Fabian in 250 AD
- Any group on this Earth (political, academic, athletic, or Religious) needs one leader: one final decision maker.
You have it in your Orthodox Church too Herm.
Every single Protestant sect has one too. In fact, most assume more authority than any Pope we've had!
- Nobody can read the Book of Acts and not acknowledge that Peter stood above the other Apostles in a leadership role. His authority was evident. Tradition shows what the early Church considered the Bishop of Rome to be, a leader. If you don't have one leader, you have Anarchy. And that's exactly what Protestanism is: Anarchy pretending that the Holy Spirit is guiding them to scriptural truths!
Easterners embraced Arianism between 340 and 381AD, when 86% of all Eastern bishops became Arians. Romans generally held fast, and defended men like St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and brought the East back to the Truth. Likewise, Easterners (including ALL FOUR Eastern patriarchs) denied Chalcedon in A.D. 482 and advocated the "orthodoxy" of Monophysism, while Romans held fast to REAL orthodoxy and had to excommunicate some heretical patriarchs. This was the famous Acacian schism which lasted until A.D. 519, and which was only healed when Emperor Justin I (an orthodox Christian) came to the throne and basically forced all of the Eastern bishops to condemn Monophysism, to embrace the dogmas of Chalcedon, and to sign the Libellus Hormisdae, which reads as follows:
"Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said,'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc,' cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is ***proved by the results****; for in the Apostolic See (Rome) religion has always been preserved without spot ....In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion." ... "In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See (Rome), shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries (i.e., the Liturgy). This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome."

(Formula Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger's Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92

The Libellus was signed by 2,500 Eastern bishops in A.D. 519. It was also re-affirmed and signed by all the bishops who deposed Photius at the Constantinople Council in 869. This illustrates very clearly that the Orthodox Church has changed considerably.

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthod...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437707 May 4, 2013
When Catholics compiled the data in the new testament, it was meant ONLY for Catholic-indulgence.

Protestants are not Catholics ... they are protestors against what Catholics wrote as truth in that new testament.

If Protestants don't like what the Catholics wrote, they should not be using the same bible, but rather they should go straight to the one god in the sky and be inspired to write their own book of lies.

tongue-in-cheek

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437708 May 4, 2013
Discovery Channel

Polygyny, the most common form of polygamy, describes when a man has multiple wives at the same time. In plural marriages of this kind, the men frequently father dozens of children, because they're able to impregnate their many wives at the same time.

The practice dates back to Biblical times. Ancient Jewish doctrines encouraged polygyny because Jews were a minority, and they could reproduce more rapidly. Today, some orthodox Jewish sects continue to support polygyny, and some believe the Talmud even encourages it.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what -...
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#437709 May 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Clay"It doesn't directly. But I wanted to post this to Ella, who i believe to be a sincere Christian and respectable poster.
She posted the Webster definition of the Catholic/Roman/Romanist/Papist Church and i wanted to remind her of where the bones of the Apostles lay. And its not beneath your Pentecostal compound Kay.
*******
I don't need dead bones. I have a living savior...
KM
Thats cute Kay. But my point is that the Catholic Church belongs to Christ Jesus and His Apostles were killed while establishing it.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437710 May 4, 2013
So the theology of this pope was that Mary's Jewish soul first came to earth in Mary from Catholic heaven.

That was quite the trick.

That would be comparable to claiming that Mother Teresa, as a saint, came back to earth from Protestant heaven to save other lost souls.

:)

>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>

Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable by Ivor H. Evans … First published 1817.

Assumption, Feast of the. 15 August, celebrated in the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH to commemorate the death of the Virgin Mary and the assumption of her body into HEAVEN when it was reunited to her soul. It can be traced back to the 6th century and in 1950 Pope Pius XII declared that the Corporal Assumption was thenceforth a dogma of the Church.
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.

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'.

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!

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."

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Catcher1 55,958
Talk to Demi Lovato (Jul '08) 5 min baranfoto 727
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 23 min ChristineM 445,894
bambam 1 hr brandy trujillo 1
Microsoft MCSA 070-697 deutsch it-pruefungen 1 hr itpruefungende 1
Windows Server 2012 70-410 deutsche Schulungsfr... 2 hr itpruefungende 1
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 2 hr Neville Thompson 432
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 hr brandy trujillo 971,739
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) Mon Jesus 47
More from around the web