Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 646235 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.

truth

Huntingdale, Australia

#454769 Jun 21, 2013
Thank you very much.
Why I am liar for you?
If first Eden exist!!!
Clay

Brooklyn, NY

#454770 Jun 21, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>UH Anthony. it was and is a quote from John chapter one.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
hint. the Bible is the Word of God.
why are we not surprised that catholics are ignorant of the Bible and what it says
Preston, the Bible does not say its 'the word of God'. The Bible is 72 separate Books gathered together. It took an outside authority to say "These Books are Biblical".
sola scripture is debunked from the get go, because scripture itself does not tell us which Books belong in the Bible.

So I don't want to hear that 'Catholics are ignorant of the Bible' when you are clearly oblivious to what the Bible is.

Btw, I wouldn't say the Bible IS the Word of God, but rather CONTAINS the Word of God. We know this because the Catholic Church told us it does.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454771 Jun 21, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
"God" isn't omniscient.
Otherwise "He" wouldn't have allowed the backward masking on Led Zeppelin's "Stairway To Heaven" to occur with references to "Satan".
http://jeffmilner.com/backmasking/stairway-to...
Unless, "He" is, and "He" doesn't mind this action to have taken place.
Hmmmm.... a paradox that is just one of many within this book:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/parad...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1403964572
Research would have told you what I have.
Why do you believe men?
God listens to Deep Purple anyway.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#454772 Jun 21, 2013
956
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>UH Anthony. it was and is a quote from John chapter one.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
hint. the Bible is the Word of God.
why are we not surprised that catholics are ignorant of the Bible and what it says
Word: something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially,(with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason,+ reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing,+ none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#454773 Jun 21, 2013
957
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Preston, the Bible does not say its 'the word of God'. The Bible is 72 separate Books gathered together. It took an outside authority to say "These Books are Biblical".
sola scripture is debunked from the get go, because scripture itself does not tell us which Books belong in the Bible.
So I don't want to hear that 'Catholics are ignorant of the Bible' when you are clearly oblivious to what the Bible is.
Btw, I wouldn't say the Bible IS the Word of God, but rather CONTAINS the Word of God. We know this because the Catholic Church told us it does.
Word: something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially,(with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason,+ reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing,+ none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Bible alone is sufficient...per Scripture..

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Since the man of God is "perfect" "thoroughly furnished" by all scripture, inspired of God, unto good works....what else is necessary????!!!! How can he be more "perfect" more "thoroughly furnished"????!!!!

Dan

Omaha, NE

#454774 Jun 21, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand the meaning of "water" in this case is don't you?
It isn't referring to "baptism by water(H 2 0)"...
Nonsense.

The ancient texts translate "water" to what it was "water".

It didn't translate to "amniotic fluid".

Further, Jesus wasn't saying that before a person can enter the kingdom he or she must first be a person.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#454775 Jun 21, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Preston, the Bible does not say its 'the word of God'. The Bible is 72 separate Books gathered together. It took an outside authority to say "These Books are Biblical".
sola scripture is debunked from the get go, because scripture itself does not tell us which Books belong in the Bible.
So I don't want to hear that 'Catholics are ignorant of the Bible' when you are clearly oblivious to what the Bible is.
Btw, I wouldn't say the Bible IS the Word of God, but rather CONTAINS the Word of God. We know this because the Catholic Church told us it does.
The authenticity or authority of Holy Writ is twofold on account of its twofold authorship. First, the various books which make up the Bible are authentic because they enjoy all the human authority that is naturally due to their respective authors. Second, they possess a higher authenticity, because invested with a Divine, supernatural authority through the Divine authorship which makes them the inspired word of God. Biblical authenticity in its first sense must naturally be considered in the articles on the several books of Sacred Scripture, in its second sense, it springs from Biblical inspiration.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#454776 Jun 21, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Preston, the Bible does not say its 'the word of God'. The Bible is 72 separate Books gathered together. It took an outside authority to say "These Books are Biblical".
sola scripture is debunked from the get go, because scripture itself does not tell us which Books belong in the Bible.
So I don't want to hear that 'Catholics are ignorant of the Bible' when you are clearly oblivious to what the Bible is.
Btw, I wouldn't say the Bible IS the Word of God, but rather CONTAINS the Word of God. We know this because the Catholic Church told us it does.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing.

Clay....why do you not believe what your religion teaches????

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#454777 Jun 21, 2013
956
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You're deliberately lying.
Here, you give us the definition/translation for charit&#335;&#333;.
That isn't the word I gave you.
“Full of Grace” translates 1'kecharit&#333;m&#277 ;n&#275;1" the perfect passive participle of charit&#335;&#333;. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in &#335;&#333;, such as haimat&#335;&#333; (turn into blood), thaumat&#335;&#333; (fill with wonder), spod&#335;&#333;mai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.[2]
Hence kecharit&#333;m&#277;n &#275; has been suitably translated as “full of grace”, by the Vulgate and the Peshitto (The principal Syriac version of the Bible).
1] Cf. L Cerfaux, Gratia plena, in Mémories et Raports du Congrès Marial tenu à Bruxelles (1921), Vol. I (Bruxelles, 1922), pp. 34-40.
[2] H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b.
Which of the five main dialects of ancient Greek is "kecharit"??

Here are the five main dialects of ancient Greek that have been found on inscriptions. They are divided based on geography, with regional subdivisions. Following the ancient dialects are the other, more modern Greek languages.
1. Attic-Ionic Greek (represented in literature)

Ionic
East Ionic
Central Ionic
West Ionic
Attic (the Greek spoken in Attica, which includes Athens).
2. Achaean

Arcadian
Cyprian
Pamphylian

3. Aeolic (represented in literature)

Lesbian
Thessalian
Boeotian

4. Doric (represented in literature)

Laconian-Heraclean
Messenian
Argolic
Megarian,
Corinthian
Rhodian
Theran-Melian
Coan-Calymnian
Cretan

5. Northwest Greek

Phocian
Locrian
Elean
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454778 Jun 21, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing personal meant by this..But when you all post this way. It comes out as numbers (assume it's non English??)
The source I had appears to have contained Greek characters which corrupted when being pasted over.

'Charitoo' is the word and definition for it that Ox substituted for the actual word we were discussing,'kekaritomene'

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#454779 Jun 21, 2013
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and

THE LORD HATH LAID UPON HIM/JESUS THE INIQUITY/SIN OF US ALL.

Commentary from the GENEVA BIBLE dated 1599

Hebrews 9:26
(15) For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the (p) end of the world hath he appeared to put away (q) sin by the sacrifice of himself.

(15) An argument to prove that Christ's offering should not be repeated: seeing that sins were to be purged from the beginning of the world, and it is proved that sins cannot be purged, but by the blood of Christ: he would have needed to have died repeatedly, since the beginning of the world. But a man can die only once: therefore Christ's sacrifice which was once done in the later days, neither could nor can be repeated. Seeing that it is so, surely the power of it extends both to sins that were before, and to sins that are after his coming.

(p) In the later days.

(q) That whole root of sin.

~~~~
The ROMAN CATHOLICS....in their EUCHARIST....

crucify

JESUS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BY/in their

TRANSUBSTANTIATION FANTASY ....

~~~

ONCE WAS SUFFICIENT...ENOUGH

Heb 9:28 So Christ was ONCE OFFERED to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#454780 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
The ancient texts translate "water" to what it was "water".
It didn't translate to "amniotic fluid".
Further, Jesus wasn't saying that before a person can enter the kingdom he or she must first be a person.
I.May have missed the ,answer from whoever I asked.

Dies the Church teach that baptism take a,away all so. Or the original sin of Adam And Eve that is conferred on us,as humans..

My understanding taught to me by the nuns was that it only takes away original sin.

Since we are taught being born again by water and the Spirit(no mention of any other sacrament) and He says,He is the st..the truth and the Light.

How dies baby baptism. Which I have no argument with ..compute with His words.

And while the the sacraments,are lovely..your sigma,is fine by me..how can you tell anyone they are less than Christians unless they go through your Church.

The Orthodox seem to date back as,far as you do..And the Protestants were,born out of the WORD that us,as,old as the apostles.

It came to me that what you are saying is similar to the Early Christian Jews,telling the Ten times they must be Jewish first in order to know,Jesus.

And for the record ..maybe the Messianic Jews have a better claim to faith..if you're saying there is any way other than PURE BELUEF in Jesus alone to reach salvation..That is,putting forth hurdles to belief. Imo..IT IS HE ALONE Through whom we have salvation .

I know you believe and accept everything your church says..that's fine but your own pope John Paul called for unity amongst Christians.

Just saying
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#454781 Jun 21, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Let me get this straight. The Roman Catholics on this forum believe the catholic church and the Roman Catholic church are the same animal. Correct?
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>yes...bow wow...
Thank you Seraphima. I take it bow wow means yes. LOL LOL

Might I add, without judgement, your posts with Regina are very angry. At one time you two were friends, correct? Please do not allow her to reduce you to her level. Instead of going down to her level....lift her up to your level. Forgive her. When you forgive her there will be two people set free and one of them will be you. You are a wonderful woman of God and I appreciate your honesty and kind spirit.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#454782 Jun 21, 2013
956
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You're deliberately lying.
Here, you give us the definition/translation for charit&#335;&#333;.
That isn't the word I gave you.
“Full of Grace” translates 1'kecharit&#333;m&#277 ;n&#275;1" the perfect passive participle of charit&#335;&#333;. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in &#335;&#333;, such as haimat&#335;&#333; (turn into blood), thaumat&#335;&#333; (fill with wonder), spod&#335;&#333;mai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.[2]
Hence kecharit&#333;m&#277;n &#275; has been suitably translated as “full of grace”, by the Vulgate and the Peshitto (The principal
edited for space...

I don't see evidence that the Catholics ever used, or are presently using, any Syriac version of the Bible..

Up until the 20th century, it was the Douay-Rheims which was first published in 1609, a couple of years before the King James Version 1611. For the next nearly 300 years the Douay-Rheims remained THE English translation of the Bible for the Catholic Church paralleling the King James Version (or AV-for Authorized Version) which remained THE English translation of the Bible for Protestant Christianity. With the exception of updating the spelling and grammar in both translations, as English changed quite a bit in the next couple centuries, they remained THE 2 translations in the English language (1 Protestant-AV, 1 Catholic-DR) for the next nearly 300 years.

Following this, to the chagrin of some in Both camps of traditionalist,(the King James and the Douay-Rheims), The RSV came out, following up the ASV. The full RSV Catholic version (or RSV-CE) came out in 1966, which has become the official sanctioned English translation of the Catholic Church. It was recently updated in 2006, as the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition. This is still known also as The Ignatius Bible.

The most noteable difference between the RSV and the RSV-CE which Catholics use is the same as with other Protestant Bibles. The Catholic Edition contains the same books of the Old Testament, but also an extra group of writings, called the Apocrypha, the other changes between it and the regular RSV are mainly from editing of some renderings in the New Testament mainly.

The Catholic Bible is composed of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is based on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible that Our Blessed Lord used. Most of the quotes in the New Testament are taken directly from the Septuagint. The New Testament was was decided in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. The protestants, when they left the Church in the sixteenth century threw out seven books of the Old Testament that they didn't agree with. They used a "council" of Jewish rabbis in the first century after Christ to base their decision on. Of course the Jews threw out the same seven books as they supported Christianity!

The actual "Catholic Bible" was originally all in Greek, the Old Testament was the Septuagint, translated by the Jews in the fourth century (approximately) B.C., and the New Testament was written in Greek. The official Bible was established in the fourth century A.D. and translated into Latin by Jerome in order that the common people could have access to it. At that time, Latin was the standard language for anyone who could read and write. Later, the Church began translated the Bible into native languages for the people as they were no longer literate in Latin. The official Bible remains in Latin, to which all translations should adhere.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454783 Jun 21, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I.May have missed the ,answer from whoever I asked.
Dies the Church teach that baptism take a,away all so. Or the original sin of Adam And Eve that is conferred on us,as humans..
My understanding taught to me by the nuns was that it only takes away original sin.
Since we are taught being born again by water and the Spirit(no mention of any other sacrament) and He says,He is the st..the truth and the Light.
How dies baby baptism. Which I have no argument with ..compute with His words.
And while the the sacraments,are lovely..your sigma,is fine by me..how can you tell anyone they are less than Christians unless they go through your Church.
The Orthodox seem to date back as,far as you do..And the Protestants were,born out of the WORD that us,as,old as the apostles.
It came to me that what you are saying is similar to the Early Christian Jews,telling the Ten times they must be Jewish first in order to know,Jesus.
And for the record ..maybe the Messianic Jews have a better claim to faith..if you're saying there is any way other than PURE BELUEF in Jesus alone to reach salvation..That is,putting forth hurdles to belief. Imo..IT IS HE ALONE Through whom we have salvation .
I know you believe and accept everything your church says..that's fine but your own pope John Paul called for unity amongst Christians.
Just saying
Baptism remits original sin.

Christ left us the Church as part of His plan for our Salvation. The Church is OF Christ.
truth

Huntingdale, Australia

#454784 Jun 21, 2013
I did not say nothing against Ortodox church..i try explain..but in period trough history and time people people change or ad many things.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#454785 Jun 21, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Sinner Man! Where you gonna run to
If you think you can run TO an imaginary Jew to save you from damnation, you really ARE a boring fool!

:)
truth

Huntingdale, Australia

#454786 Jun 21, 2013
Prophet Solomon first bealive in two god..then 14 after..
explain that..
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454787 Jun 21, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
956
<quoted text>
edited for space...
I don't see evidence that the Catholics ever used, or are presently using, any Syriac version of the Bible..
Up until the 20th century, it was the Douay-Rheims which was first published in 1609, a couple of years before the King James Version 1611. For the next nearly 300 years the Douay-Rheims remained THE English translation of the Bible for the Catholic Church paralleling the King James Version (or AV-for Authorized Version) which remained THE English translation of the Bible for Protestant Christianity. With the exception of updating the spelling and grammar in both translations, as English changed quite a bit in the next couple centuries, they remained THE 2 translations in the English language (1 Protestant-AV, 1 Catholic-DR) for the next nearly 300 years.
Following this, to the chagrin of some in Both camps of traditionalist,(the King James and the Douay-Rheims), The RSV came out, following up the ASV. The full RSV Catholic version (or RSV-CE) came out in 1966, which has become the official sanctioned English translation of the Catholic Church. It was recently updated in 2006, as the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition. This is still known also as The Ignatius Bible.
The most noteable difference between the RSV and the RSV-CE which Catholics use is the same as with other Protestant Bibles. The Catholic Edition contains the same books of the Old Testament, but also an extra group of writings, called the Apocrypha, the other changes between it and the regular RSV are mainly from editing of some renderings in the New Testament mainly.
The Catholic Bible is composed of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is based on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible that Our Blessed Lord used. Most of the quotes in the New Testament are taken directly from the Septuagint. The New Testament was was decided in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. The protestants, when they left the Church in the sixteenth century threw out seven books of the Old Testament that they didn't agree with. They used a "council" of Jewish rabbis in the first century after Christ to base their decision on. Of course the Jews threw out the same seven books as they supported Christianity!
The actual "Catholic Bible" was originally all in Greek, the Old Testament was the Septuagint, translated by the Jews in the fourth century (approximately) B.C., and the New Testament was written in Greek. The official Bible was established in the fourth century A.D. and translated into Latin by Jerome in order that the common people could have access to it. At that time, Latin was the standard language for anyone who could read and write. Later, the Church began translated the Bible into native languages for the people as they were no longer literate in Latin. The official Bible remains in Latin, to which all translations should adhere.
The source text is what it is, and you seemed to have NO issue with Greek when you threw out "charitoo" as a rejoinder earlier.

Wrong is wrong, and you were wrong.

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#454788 Jun 21, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
The ironic thing is, they are pretty much "throwing their own under the buss also".
Cathaholics remind me of the "Stepford Wives".
Well, Luther and his gang of thugs were Catholics that fought and killed other Catholics in order to create a new religion called Protestantism.

Jews fought and killed other Jews in order to start a new religion called Catholicism.

And today they are all still fighting over who the supposed one and only "god" loves.

Stupid is forever.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Catcher1 971,526
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min It aint necessari... 47,664
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 49 min WasteWater 2,000
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 51 min USA-1 38,710
sex 59 min gud frnd 1
"Moses, would you PLEASE tell God to STOP the F... 1 hr andet1987 8
I Saw My Brother Naked and I Liked It! (Oct '10) 1 hr James 33
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Ficken Facts 105,566
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 hr Ficken Facts 44,703
More from around the web