Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 559,501
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442055 May 17, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
For starters, you might want to read some of the writings from the fathers of the Church. They are much less vague than I.
What I can tell you is that they all held the Catholic faith. None of them held the protestant evangelical faith.
Well DUH...Your rhetoric is good, but that is all so far.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442056 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I know - they let Tom Hanks in there....*winks*....
Well- only cuz he got's "chocolates"!
Regina

Long Branch, NJ

#442057 May 17, 2013
The Church Fathers

In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the One True God," is typical of many such replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf. Justin, First Apology 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.4.2).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442058 May 17, 2013
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily on this forum, but among denominations.
I'm not sure how you could determine who believes in only "a portion of what Jesus taught" because it is debated who, where, what, and when Christ taught. I believe that a lot of people only know about or study a small portion of what Jesus taught, but I still consider them "Christians."
To me, a "Christian" is someone who professes faith in the saving power of Christ's atonement and acts on it.
I think God is an inclusive God, and I don't think He would want us trying to exclude people from his fold....even if they may seem to be on the outer fringes.
IOW, You don't have to even read the bible or go any church...just blindly accept Jesus as you savior and that is it HUH?
If you say you are it -you are it-YER SAVED!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahh! <SNORT> Hahahahahahahahahahh!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442059 May 17, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>the "true church" would not have to change it's beliefs,like i said the pope is considered the vicar of christ by the church,he has all the answers,he is god on earth.and since they do change their beliefs,there is no way it can be the true church.
Ya wanna know the name of the "original" true [organized] "church" of Jesus?

It was called-the "Church if God of Jerusalem".

Anyone who can find an "earlier" organized church of Jesus is free to put it up and I will recant.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442060 May 17, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
What else will the Catholic Church change in the future? It is obvious that in the future, the church will change its position on contraception, homosexuality, women priests and married priests. It will forget that it ever opposed them, and the fact that it ever did will just become the humorous answer to a trivia question: "The church once opposed contraception - oddly enough!"
I dunno...maybe Mary will become fully "divine" and it will be known as the "Quadraplipity"...wh o knows...it ain't like they ain't done it before.

Might take some bloody fights between them bishop fellas, but that ain't nuth'n new neither...is it?
Disciple

Temecula, CA

#442061 May 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
We can see CO2. We can predict what it will do. We can test it, measure it, and even weight it.
We can measure exactly what a CO2 molecule does to light energy.
Not one member of the National Academy of Science disputes what C)2 does.
So no, not imaginary like your god.
Why would a so called Christian be in denial in order to support excess anyhow? I don't understand?
Which is to promote plant growth not global warming.
Who's in denial? Who is imagining things?
I say you.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#442062 May 17, 2013
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily on this forum, but among denominations.
I'm not sure how you could determine who believes in only "a portion of what Jesus taught" because it is debated who, where, what, and when Christ taught. I believe that a lot of people only know about or study a small portion of what Jesus taught, but I still consider them "Christians."
To me, a "Christian" is someone who professes faith in the saving power of Christ's atonement and acts on it.
I think God is an inclusive God, and I don't think He would want us trying to exclude people from his fold....even if they may seem to be on the outer fringes.
Thanks for responding.

"To me, a "Christian" is someone who professes faith in the saving power of Christ's atonement and acts on it."
- not a bad definition - one could also say the exact same thing occurs with the Self.
- but if you really dig deeper into your definition, you've actually stated something directly related to a choice an individual makes, which really has nothing to do with Jesus at all. Which is accurately described as Self.

So you are correct that no religion is required to become a follower of anybody - Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl.

Thanks for providing yet another 'different' definition of a "Christian", I'll add it to the many others, that people have expressed.

*sighs* You bummed me out though. Want to know why? Well, your definition doesn't include the following:

"is someone who professes faith in the saving power of Christ's atonement and acts on it."
- just because one professes and acts upon this "saving power" - through "faith", you didn't describe how much faith is required.
- you didn't mention nothing on the Spirit, unless you are implying that the "saving power of Christ" is this Spirit. Is it?

Cheers!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442063 May 17, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
ancient aliens is on,the history channel2,very interesting show.
Don't believe every thing you hear in their "show". A lot of it is is incorrect.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#442064 May 17, 2013
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:

The Catholic Church did a lot to patron the arts. Think of all the music, architecture and art we would not have without the Catholic Church.

New Age writes:
Poetry and the troubadours of the 11th and 12th centuries played a big role as well. Laying claim to solely the CCis arrogant. People still had imaginations and personal talents without any relationship to that organization.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#442065 May 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
The church funded Da Vinci?
Yes, it commissioned some work from him. http://www.leonardoda-vinci.org/biography.htm...

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442066 May 17, 2013
Regina wrote:
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).
The Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water.... If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia ... chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity
One questoin...Does it say anywhere in Matthew..."Jesus of Nazareth"?

BTW "waters" was the "abyss"(nun) spoken of in the "Old Kingdom" of Egypt.

BTW- If "lineage" was determined by "male" succession(as was everyone preceding), then Jesus born of "Mary" was totally out of the picture of succession of lineage.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#442068 May 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, You don't have to even read the bible or go any church...just blindly accept Jesus as you savior and that is it HUH?
If you say you are it -you are it-YER SAVED!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahh! <SNORT> Hahahahahahahahahahh!
Being a Christian and being "saved" are different things.

I don't understand what is so funny. What do you mean by "blindly accept Jesus"?

Being a Christian is much more than simply saying it, as I mentioned before, it implies action.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#442069 May 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the question. The question is...are the gospels accurate to the sayings and events at all.
Early writings provide evidence that they are "elaborated" "highly"...and with an agenda of the "universal church".
...and symbolism - a simple way to explain something when you have illiterate peeps, or when you are trying to teach something.

It was very commonplace then and before that time.

Using symbols as a way to communicate has been found all over the world in forms of petroglyphs and hieroglyphs.

Jesus used parables to communicate.

Christianity takes it to another extreme by twisting the tales to its liking, instead of earnestly seeking out the true meanings.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#442070 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>

*sighs* You bummed me out though. Want to know why? Well, your definition doesn't include the following:
"is someone who professes faith in the saving power of Christ's atonement and acts on it."
- just because one professes and acts upon this "saving power" - through "faith", you didn't describe how much faith is required.
- you didn't mention nothing on the Spirit, unless you are implying that the "saving power of Christ" is this Spirit. Is it?
Cheers!
You bring up some good points. However, how do you quantify how much "faith" is required? That is between you and God,and we can't hold up a "faith meter" to measure how "Christian" some one is.

As far as the Spirit, that was implied in my definition. If you profess faith and act on it, you will follow Christ and repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost from authorized ministers of Christ's gospel, and you will continue to follow Christ by following what the Holy Spirit tells you.

Basically five major steps:
-Faith
-Repentance
-Baptism
-Receive the Holy Ghost
-Endure

I'd consider some one a Christian no matter where they are on "steps" I listed...as long as they have faith and are progressing towards the later steps, which will happen in they are acting on true faith.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442071 May 17, 2013
Regina wrote:
Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).
Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ... and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made.... We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.... This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).
"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).
"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said,‘I and my Father are one’[John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).
All written against the heresies...that of the "Roman" elite.

Why don't you supply the history and reasons for these cherrypicked eludes to all that transpired?
Of course if you are just "picking" them from an apologetic Bias site, I could understand the omission.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#442072 May 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahah!
It is true though.
My worst experience was when school began, and I learned the cruelty of other humans... and I became brutal(just like them) to survive and stand up for others like me, or others less capable...but I never forgot what I learned from my "friends".
Brutality is learned and unnatural.
Oh BT, I'm not disputing you, I just find in interesting.

It just goes to show what is seen through a child's eye, versus what we adults live. I sometimes wish I was a child again, but many times, I don't. So I compromised. I now collect action figures, comic books, and Hot wheels!
- "the one with the most toys wins!"

:o)

I sometimes dream of being able to sit with animals in their homes, but after having and raising ferrets for 10 yrs, I chose not to anymore.

:o)

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#442073 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
The Catholic Church did a lot to patron the arts. Think of all the music, architecture and art we would not have without the Catholic Church.
New Age writes:
Poetry and the troubadours of the 11th and 12th centuries played a big role as well. Laying claim to solely the CCis arrogant. People still had imaginations and personal talents without any relationship to that organization.
True, but the Church facilitated a lot. People still would have had imaginations without the church. However, would some of the great composers and artists and architects been able to devote as much time to refine their talent if they were not supported by the Church?

We can only guess.
Regina

Long Branch, NJ

#442074 May 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
One questoin...Does it say anywhere in Matthew..."Jesus of Nazareth"?
BTW "waters" was the "abyss"(nun) spoken of in the "Old Kingdom" of Egypt.
BTW- If "lineage" was determined by "male" succession(as was everyone preceding), then Jesus born of "Mary" was totally out of the picture of succession of lineage.
The attempt to picture Gnosticism as a mighty movement of the human mind towards the noblest and highest truth, a movement in some way parallel to that of Christianity, has completely failed. It has been abandoned by recent unprejudiced scholars such as W. Bousset and O. Gruppe, and it is to be regretted that it should have been renewed by an English writer, G.R.S. Mead, in "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten", an unscholarly and misleading work, which in English-speaking countries may retard the sober and true appreciation of Gnosticism as it was in historical fact.

Gnosticism was not an advance, it was a retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to the core. This Oriental spirit — Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the astrological and cosmogonic lore of the Asiatic world — first sore beset by Ahuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it was a real danger to Christianity, though not so great as some modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, Christianity.

Similar things are said of Mithraism and neo-Platonism as against the religion of Jesus Christ. But these sayings have more piquancy than objective truth. Christianity survived, and not Gnosticism, because the former was the fittest — immeasurably, nay infinitely, so. Gnosticism died not by chance, but because it lacked vital power within itself; and no amount of theosophistic literature, flooding English and German markets, can give life to that which perished from intrinsic and essential defects.(I concur.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442075 May 17, 2013
Regina wrote:
Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).
"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon ... the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).
Hippolytus
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).
Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God.... Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).
----------
There's more..........
There certainly is!

Anyone who did not profess or conform to this belief was tortured, burned and/or murdered!---by order of Theodosius!

What a great religion!!!!

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
Letter Sent To NC Official From Chinaman 4 min Ebola Kills Everyone 20
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 4 min Johnny 1,008
The Real ISIS War Is About The Global Elites Ve... 15 min End Of Days 13
The Anti-Christ...Part 4 16 min End Of Days 19
Are You A Friend Or An Enemy To Humans? Read Th... 16 min End Of Days 29
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min It aint necessari... 775,287
The Many Secrets Of Kay Hagan...Lindsey Graham.... 20 min Power_2014 11
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 56 min who 265,147
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr truth 605,006
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 6 hr Lost In Transition 175,630
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 20 hr Native Indian 5,520
More from around the web