Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 646917 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.

Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437807 May 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Comes down to this:
Do you think Peter was the leader of the Apostles or not?
If Christ set up his Church like that, then its safe to say that the next generation of Apostles also had a leader....and the next and next.

By what name shall I hail thee, Martin? Shall I call thee the glorious leader for all the Orthodox Faith? Shall I call thee the holy Coryphaeus (Head), the leader of Divine dogmas that speaketh no errors?" (Byzantine Liturgy for the Feast of St. Martin, Pope of Rome).

In 680-81, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III calls Pope Agatho "the Head of the Church." And while this same council posthumously condemed Pope Honorius I for "heresy" (that is, for "assisting in the base assertions of the heretics" by not immediately condemning the Monothelites), it was clearly understood that Honorius was merely negligent and that he did not directly promote the heresy or speak with the authority of Rome. For example, Pope Agatho himself declares:

"The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church." (Mansi, v. 11, p. 285).

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437808 May 4, 2013
capitosinora wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem with catholic church is the fact that for very long time shifted from real Christ teaching to pragmatic humanism
Such blather.

The theology of Christ was Jewish, and the word meant "Messiah."

The theology of Jesus that came much later was Catholic-oriented, and that word also meant "Messiah."

You will see the lies, but ONLY when you choose to see them.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#437810 May 4, 2013
The Orthodox church does recognize a role given to the bishop of Rome but what authority does that role give him? The orthodox church looks at the bishop of Rome as the FIRST among EQUALS. Being the bishop of Rome is a role of honor and respect. Obviously the bishop or Rome had a more in depth role in the church due to Rome being the largest of all Christian communities at the time, but does this give the bishop of Rome authority over the other bishops? Absolutely not and it is absurd to think so! The bishop of Rome had no power to interfere with the other eastern bishops unless the other bishops abandoned Christian teaching in which the eastern bishops could also do the same to the bishop of Rome and did! The bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor but not a primacy of authority. The best analogy i ever heard about this issue is the captain on a basketball team. The captain (bishop of Rome) definitely has a position of honor but does not have more of a position then the other four players (eastern bishops) nor does he have authority over the other four players. Only the coach (God) can rule the whole team.


Since: Apr 07


#437812 May 4, 2013
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>Okay now. Dig a little deeper to get to the fruit of the matter. Go to verse 2 and take it to the HEBREW. Look up the word ....AGAIN.... where it states that she again bare his brother Abel. The word AGAIN in the Hebrew text was...YACAPH, number 3254 in the Strongs Hebrew dictionary and it means to CONTINUE. or to continue to do the same thing. Eve continued in labor after she gave birth to Cain and she gave birth to Abel after she gave birth to Cain during the same labor episode of giving birth. In essence she had FRATERNAL TWINS,not identical Cain was fathered by Satan and Abel was fathered by Adam but she gave birth to both twins during the same labor event. As it states she >>>>>AGAIN <<<<<<< bare his brother Abel which means that she continued in labor and gave birth to Abel,Adams son after she gave birth to Cain, Satans son. As I stated...DIG DEEPER.
Some of the greatest disappointments that I have gone through was when as a child I eventually learned that there was no Santa Claus after being lied to by Adults that there was this man in a red suit that would come down through the chimney and bring gifts. I believed in Santa with all my heart and was absolutely devastated when I learned that there was no Santa after all. Another was when I, having grown up in the church and being taught that Adam was both Cain and Abels father and that he and Eve were driven out of the garden because they ate the wrong produce. When I finally came to a knowledge of the truth,I was so devastated to learn that they were driven out of the garden not because they ate the wrong produce but because of what they did that was much more sinister than eating some fruit that God told them not to eat. The issue of eating forbidden fruit was nothing but a metaphor so to speak of something much more sinister. Yet supposedly mature teachers and preachers have untold millions of the deceived believing that God drove them out of the garden of Eden for eating some forbidden produce and that Adam was Cains father also. When I learned the truth I was so angry at the religious community for having lied to me for so many years though maybe their intentions may have been good.

Nothing can hurt worse than to grow believing something with all your heart only to discover eventually that what you had been taught and believed all your life was nothing but a lie. The powers of darkness has to be behind that deception going forth from the pulpit

I was amazed and so grateful to God when I started digging deeper into His word after He sent me a teacher that could divide the word of God on a level that even babies could understand it if God gave them eyes to see. Many people do not have spiritual eyes to see which is why so many ac tually think that Cain was Adams son and that God drove them out of the garden for eating fruit. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH FRUIT.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437813 May 4, 2013
“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord .... nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.”(Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)

So while everyone recognized the authority of Pope Victor to excommunicate it was upon this letter written by Irenaus that he lifted the excommunication as unity of the church was the main goal to begin with.

"In the second century, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, journeyed to Rome to confer with Pope Anicetus regarding the disagreement over the proper date for the celebration of Pascha. Neither was able to convince the other, and they decided that the two practices could coëxist.

The situation was actually messier yet. There existed in practice, because of the way the Hebrew calendar worked, not two but a multitude of dates for the celebration Pascha. Jews and others in the ancient Near East followed a lunar calendar in which each month averaged 29½ days in length. They had twelve months in most years, each month beginning with a new moon. This made the year too short, so an extra, thirteenth month was inserted every two or three years to keep the months in step with the seasons (which depend on the sun rather than the moon).

There were no printed calendars at that time, and no one ever knew exactly how many days there would be in a given month or year. The beginning of a new month was declared when the first sliver of a new moon was sighted in the sky. Of course, observation of the new moon depended on location and weather conditions, thus people in different places often did not start a new month at the same time. Since Pascha was observed on the 14 th of the month†—and that depended on local sighting of the new moon—there was no way for Christians (or Jews, for that matter) to plan a united observance of Pascha.

In the fourth century the Emperor Constantine espoused Christianity and made it not only legal but the favored religion of the Empire. The Church suddenly started growing by leaps and bounds, and he gave public buildings for the Church’s use, but he was perturbed to find out about the different practices regarding the date of Pascha.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437814 May 4, 2013
Myth #1: First Among Equals

The first myth is that the Pope of Rome used to be "First Among Equals" (and/or "Ecumenical Patriarch") and then "placed himself over the other bishops, wanting to be Head of the Church."

FACT: The Pope NEVER held the title "First Among Equals." However, he DID posses the titles "Vicarius Christi" (Vicar of Christ, late 300's), "Servus Sevorum Dei" (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400's), and Yep, you guessed it, "Head of the Church" (late 400's), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). So, any Orthodox who denies that the Pope of Rome is Head of the Church does not stand with the Council Fathers.

As for Ecumenical Patriarch, that was an out-and-out creation by the Byzantine government in the 600's (and it was never offered to Rome, but was designed for Constantinople). Gregory the Great was the first to deny this title to the P.of C.(calling it "haughty" and "unTraditional") and the denials continued well into the 900's (when Photius demanded to have it); and, after him, Michael Cerularius which was fuel to the fire re: the Great Schism.

Myth #2: Five Patriarchs with Equal Authority

The 2nd myth goes like this: "There used to be 5 Patriarchs, all with equal authority. Then, the Pope of Rome broke off from the Church, whereas the other 4 remained."

Now,:-) this again, is not only revisionism, but out-and-out Greek bigotry. As stated, it makes it seem like there were 4 independent Patriarchs at the time who freely refused to stick with Rome in 1054. However, once one bothers to read the history, that's not the case at all.

In 1054, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these sees (since all of the locals broke off with the Monophysites). Rather, the Orthodox bishops of these sees in 1054 were all Byzantine Melkites -- Imperial appointees from Constantinople! Furthermore, they were presiding within Muslim countries; and their flocks were puny at best (most of the Christians in those regions being Monophysite, not Orthodox). So, they were no longer the great metropolitan sees of the ancient Church.

So, when the Orthodox say that there were 5 patriarchs and 1 broke off, that is not the case at all. It was not a 4 to 1 split. It was a 1 to 1 split -- Rome and Constantinople. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time (ruled by imperial-minded Greeks from Byzantium) did whatever Constantinople told them to do. And, if Churches like the Copts and the Jacobites turn out not to be Monophysite after all, then these men weren't even the the legitimate bishops! But, the "Greek invaders" as the Copts and Syrians saw them.

So, in essence, the aforementioned Orthodox myth implies (nay, declares) that one must be Byzantine Greek in order to be in the Church. This is most anathema. ;-) And so much for the "poll of bishops" to determine orthodoxy. By 1054, Byzantium had done away with that replacing (rightly or wrongly) the legitimately-elected bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions at Chalcedon. So, if Orthodoxy truly believes that correct doctrine is determined by a poll of the teachings of all bishops everywhere, then Orthodoxy is guilty of hypocrisy (from about 451 on).

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#437815 May 4, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
And why a Jew would want to build a church rather than a synagogue, is another one of those tall tales that ought to be scrutinized to the fullest.
synagogue: sunagoge, an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:--assembly, congregation, synagogue.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437816 May 4, 2013
In the January 2009 issue of "The Word", publication of The Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip Saliba decried the divisions of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America into separate ethnic-national Churches. We have, he lamented, "more than fifteen jurisdictions based on ethnicity contrary to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils." His important article reproduced the talk he gave at the Conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary in Scarsdale, NY, on June 4-8, 2008. There he admitted canonical chaos had resulted from the century-old grip of Ethno-phyletism on their Churches.[Ethno-phyletism is the view that each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church, resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

Metropolitan Philip declared:

"Our canons clearly state that we cannot have more than one bishop over the same territory, and one metropolitan over the same metropolis. I regret to tell you that we Orthodox are violating this important ecclesiological principle in North America, South America, Europe and Australia. In New York, for example, we have more than ten Orthodox bishops over the same city and the same territory. I can say the same thing about other cities and territories in North America... The same thing has happened in Paris, France. There are six co-existing Orthodox bishops with overlapping ecclesiological jurisdictions. In my opinion and in the opinion of Orthodox canonists, this is ecclesiological ethno-phyletism. This is heretical. How can we condemn ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872 and still practice the same thing in the twenty-first century in North America ?"

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#437817 May 4, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
They were the first denomination, as they were the first to use the word Christian for their religion.
All others are shirt-tale relations.
A name given at Antioch to those who believed Jesus to be the Messiah, A. D. 42, Ac 11:26 It seems to have been given to them by the men of Antioch as a term of convenience rather than of ridicule, to designate the new sect more perfectly than any other word could do. They generally called each other "brethren," "the faithful," "saints," "believers;" and were named by the Gentiles, Nazarenes and Galileans. He only is a real Christian who heartily accepts Christ as his teacher, guide, and master, the source of his highest life, strength, and joy, his only Redeemer from sin and hell, his Lord and his God. They who rightly bear Christ's name and partake of his nature, and they only, shall finally share in his glory.

Rockford, IL

#437818 May 4, 2013
Regina wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you read what I posted from the Catechism about our reverence for Scripture. It's very rude of you not to acknowledge it and apologize for your remarks.
Scripture is the written portion of Sacred Tradition.
The Catholic Church came before the Bible.
The Bible came from the Catholic Church.
The NT was written by the Catholic Church for the Catholic Church.
It's our pleasure to allow you to read it. You're welcome.
Do try to reign in your claws and fangs. "Aretha" (lol), doesn't like it.
Scripture is the written portion of Sacred Tradition. Lie #1 This statement is so stupid it does not warrant a response.

The Catholic Church came before the Bible. Lie #2 So the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH wrote the Bible. That will be news for the Jews.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church. Lie #3 No, the Bible came from God.

The NT was written by the Catholic Church for the Catholic Church. Lie #4.....Which of the New Testament writers claimed to be Roman Catholic?

Other than 4 lies what else do you have to offer?

Leesburg, GA

#437819 May 4, 2013
But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Leesburg, GA

#437820 May 4, 2013
Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church

Leesburg, GA

#437821 May 4, 2013
And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ--everything in heaven and on earth.

Leesburg, GA

#437822 May 4, 2013
God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church.

Leesburg, GA

#437823 May 4, 2013
hey oxbow and oldjg;

They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#437824 May 4, 2013
During the history of Christianity, the title of Vicar of Christ was used in different ways, with implications for theological, pastoral or different time.
1. The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, a disciple of St. John, probably commanded by Peter,with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD "your bishop presides in the place of God (...)". Although Ignatius did not explicitly use the term Vicar of Christ, he clearly sets out the concept.
2. More recently, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium noted that bishops are "vicars and ambassadors of Christ," and the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that each bishop governs his diocese "[a]s Christ's vicar."
The second recorded use of the term "Vicar of Christ" is found in the epistles of Tertullian in the 3rd century, with a different theological slant to refer to the Holy Spirit, that is, as Christ is not physically performing miracles in the Church, Holy Spirit acts as his Vicar on his behalf, performing miracles and preventing the Church err.[8] It is unknown whether this term was widely used in the early Church, or whether it was a personal theological observation of Tertullian.
he third use of the term Vicar of Christ appears in the 5th century, in a synod of bishops to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The theological connotations of the title got a pastoral sense, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar and pastor with the responsibility to feed his flock (i.e. the Church) in his own place

However, the use of the title to refer to the popes in the early Church was unstable, and several variants of the use of Vicar were used for the Pope, as "Vicar of Peter", indicating that they were the successors of St. Peter, "Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles" or "Vicar of the Apostolic See",[3] among other variants. This title is used by the Roman Missal in their prayers for a dead pope,[9] and the oath of allegiance to St. Boniface to Pope Gregory II
Since 1200, Popes have consistently used this title Insisting that he - and he alone - had the right to remove bishops from office, Pope Innocent III appealed to the title of Vicar of Christ.(cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep.")[3] Occasionally, Popes like Nicholas III used "Vicar of God" as an equivalent title)[3] The 2012 edition of the Annuario Pontificio gives "Vicar of Jesus Christ" as the second official title of the Pope (the first being "Bishop of Rome").
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437825 May 4, 2013
Eastern Orthodox Fr. Cleenewerck states:

"Orthodox would almost like to forget that their [liturgical] calendar and theology is replete with ‘Popes of Rome’ whose teachings about their own authority is better left unmentioned."
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437826 May 4, 2013
Orthodox Scholar Alexander Schmemann The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology

"There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this -- and to deny this is based purely on "anti-Roman prejudice"

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local 'centers of agreement' or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy....

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome --'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history -- an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)


Since: Apr 07


#437827 May 4, 2013
I explained to the forum the event where Eve gave birth to both Cain and Abel and I showed you guys where it read "She again bare his brother abel" so that verse should have read thusly when you understand the word AGAIN in Hebrew..."she """CONTINUED """ in labor and bare his brother Abel. Of the two brothers that she gave birth to,Cain came out first and when she continued ( THE WORD """"AGAIN """" WAS USED HERE)in labor she then gave birth to his brother Abel. THEY WERE FRATERNAL TWINS EACH FATHERED BY A DIFFERENT MAN. Adam ( Abel ) and Satan,(Cain ).
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437828 May 4, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
an ecumenical council at Chalcedon could clearly recognize why Rome had the prerogatives she did, as seen in the 28th canon of Chalcedon:
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ROYAL CITY. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.
More revisionist history from the Hermetic.

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying...

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:


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
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 min RiccardoFire 105,675
How to solve racism (and sexism) once and for all 4 min Johnny 9
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 7 min RiccardoFire 44,722
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 9 min WasteWater 2,103
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 22 min Peter Ross 49,390
The Red Sky prophecy. 54 min reader 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Joe Fortuna 971,800
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr ChristineM 445,751
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 9 hr patsy the shared ... 26
More from around the web