Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 650634 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.

Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#456361 Jun 25, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Page 2 of 2
Constitutum Constantini (Donation of Constantine)
Constantine and Pope Sylvester I The Pope's authority over all of Europe is based the Constitutum Constantini (the Donation of Constantine), a 3,000-word documented purportedly written by Constantine between A.D. 315 and 325 that legalized Christianity and gave the See of Rome and the pope spiritual power over the entire world in addition to political power over Europe. The document was not made public until the ninth century when it was used as evidence in dogma debates when the Christian church split into the Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox Church.
In the A.D. 8th century Pope Stephen II and the military leader Pepin (king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne) gained control of huge chunk of land in central Italy, that included Rome and Ravenna, by using the Constitutum Constantini. The chunk of land, known as the Patrimony of St. Peter, was ruled by the popes for most of the next 11 centuries.
The Constitutum Constantini (the Donation of Constantine) was later revealed to be, in the words of Voltaire, the "boldest and the most magnificent forgery." One of the documents flaws was that it gave Rome authority in New Rome (Constantinople) at least a decade before the city was founded.
Constantine Byzantine mosaic In 1440,the Constitutum Constantini was labeled a fake by Lorenzo Valla who was called into settle a dispute between King Alfonos and Pope Eugenius IV over who had secular authority over Italy. Valla showed the Constitutum Constantini was a fake. An authority on Latin, Valla pointed out that a diadem in Constantine's time was not a gold crown as the the Constitutum Constantini claimed but was coarse cloth and the word "tiara" was not even in use at the time the document was said to have been written. A number of other words in it were not used in Constantine's time.
Valla was later convicted of heresy for pointing out the "Apostle's Creed" could not have been composed by the Twelve Apostles. He was convicted on eight counts and probably would have been burned at the stake were it not for his patron King Alfonso.
So are you saying before the Council of Nacea, the Christian Church was morally stout. Then, Constantine began infiltrating the teachings and corrupted the hierarchy? Suddenly Our Lords Church was combined with some sort of Pagan Satanic ritualistic thing, and the TRUE Church (body of believers) survived this terrible mess, and when the Bible was printed in 1254, the truth could come back out again!

Old Geez, if I was a Bible student in your class, I would close my Book and get up and say, "it looks like this Jesus was a fraud". Then I would walk out the door. If you version was truth, than Christ wasn't who He said He was and Christianity is one big joke.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#456362 Jun 25, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Page 1 of 2
Constantine became like a Pope when he called the first general ecumenical council, in Nicaea in A.D. 325, to settle questions of doctrine. The most important decision was the adoption of Nicene creed: the assertion that the denial of Christ’s divinity was a heresy. This became the basis of all church doctrine from that time forward. Anyone who departed from the creed was branded a heretic.
St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, became one of the most cherished saints in the Greek Orthodox church. On her first pilgrimage to the Holy Land she came back with the True Cross, Christ's crown of thorns and the lance used to pierce his skin before his crucifixion. And if that wasn't enough she identified Christ's tomb, which had been covered over by a temple dedicated to Aphrodite. The site is now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
Under Constantine, Christians who deviated from official church doctrine were branded as heretics and were given no support, were punished with penalties and were ordered to stop meeting.
After Constantine died in 337, the Roman Empire was divided up among his sons. Christianity spread gradually but inexorably through the Roman Empire and beyond its borders. Paganism was banned at the end of 4th century and restrictions were placed on Judaism. The power and the wealth of the church grew quickly with the help of faithful Christians who donated their land and other possessions. By the beginning of the 6th century Christianity had 34 million followers. They made up half of the Roman Empire.
The Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea (present-day Iznik In Turkey), inaugurating the ecumenical movement. Called by Constantine to combat heresy and settle questions of doctrine, it attracted thousands of priests, 318 bishops, two papal lieutenants and the Roman Emperor Constantine himself. The attendees discussed the Holy trinity and the eventual linkage of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, argued whether Jesus was truly divine or just a prophet (he was judged divine), and decided that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.
The early councils were shaped largely by Christian scholars from Alexandria and their views were in line with modern Coptic doctrine that the God and Christ are of the same essence and that Christ’s divinity and humanity are unified.
Constantine made a grand entrance at the council. According to one witness he “proceeded through the midst of the assembly” and acted like a Pope. The greatest debate was between Arius, a priest from Alexandria, who argued that Christ was not the equal of God but was created by him, and Athanasius, the leader of the bishops to the west, who claimed that the Father and Son, where distinct, but hatched from the same substances and thus were equal. Arus’s argument was rejected in part because it opened to the door to polytheism and a doctrine was codified that stated Christ was “begotten not made” and that God and Christ were “of the same stuff.”
The Council of Nicaea gave us the Roman version of Christianity rather the Nestorian. The most important decision was the rejection of Arius’s arguments and the adoption of Nicene creed: the assertions that Christ’s divinity, the Virgin Birth and the Holy Trinity were truths and the denial of Christ’s divinity was a heresy. This became the basis of all church doctrine from that time forward. Anyone who departed from the creed was branded a heretic.
Why do you and Oxbore refuse to cite your sources? Are you ashamed?

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#456363 Jun 25, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Page 2 of 2
Constitutum Constantini (Donation of Constantine)
Constantine and Pope Sylvester I The Pope's authority over all of Europe is based the Constitutum Constantini (the Donation of Constantine), a 3,000-word documented purportedly written by Constantine between A.D. 315 and 325 that legalized Christianity and gave the See of Rome and the pope spiritual power over the entire world in addition to political power over Europe. The document was not made public until the ninth century when it was used as evidence in dogma debates when the Christian church split into the Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox Church.
In the A.D. 8th century Pope Stephen II and the military leader Pepin (king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne) gained control of huge chunk of land in central Italy, that included Rome and Ravenna, by using the Constitutum Constantini. The chunk of land, known as the Patrimony of St. Peter, was ruled by the popes for most of the next 11 centuries.
The Constitutum Constantini (the Donation of Constantine) was later revealed to be, in the words of Voltaire, the "boldest and the most magnificent forgery." One of the documents flaws was that it gave Rome authority in New Rome (Constantinople) at least a decade before the city was founded.
Constantine Byzantine mosaic In 1440,the Constitutum Constantini was labeled a fake by Lorenzo Valla who was called into settle a dispute between King Alfonos and Pope Eugenius IV over who had secular authority over Italy. Valla showed the Constitutum Constantini was a fake. An authority on Latin, Valla pointed out that a diadem in Constantine's time was not a gold crown as the the Constitutum Constantini claimed but was coarse cloth and the word "tiara" was not even in use at the time the document was said to have been written. A number of other words in it were not used in Constantine's time.
Valla was later convicted of heresy for pointing out the "Apostle's Creed" could not have been composed by the Twelve Apostles. He was convicted on eight counts and probably would have been burned at the stake were it not for his patron King Alfonso.
Very intersting JG

Curious if you looked at those videos

ISRAEL OF THE ALPS..if you are like Kay and don't do links..just Google it ..on YouTube 3videos spanning a long history dating from around the time of Constantine ..maybe a bit after..these people hid in villages,.
In the Alps.

They were Christians ..I originally thought by the title that they were Jews ..But definitely. Not.

They had copies if scripture and preached in the surrounding area on foot like the disciples..They wanted nothing to do with the organized Church..They were later hunted down by a group sent by Rome..some were killed ..some escaped..

It's a very touching story..And courageous..And I can imagine they were not the only ones to act outside the Church proper.

With your knowledge if history..thought this might be if interest..:)

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#456364 Jun 25, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to laugh at you, but it is sad. Hermetic already tried that farce.(edited for space)
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 tedthe 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
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:
"...we do also 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 fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)
However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500)-- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
Luke Rivington's Account The Byzantine Plot
http://www.orthodoxresearchins titute.org/articles/church_his tory/michael_theschism.htm.... ......Your church started in 1054 and has rewritten history to suit it self.The catholic church has a history since 1054 of lies, deceit, murder, doublespeak, and propaganda.The catholic church not only schismed from the Orthodox Church they schimed from the TRUTH and never came back.By the way,Hermi never copies his posts from one site as you do from a catholic site.Hermi uses many many sources he doesn't need the church tell him what to think.Now me on the other hand post from an Orthodox site to show you I can do the same as you...lol
Human Being

Ville Platte, LA

#456365 Jun 25, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the honesty - I just wish more of the posters would exhibit this as well.
"Maybe your view of being a Christian is a bit outdated?(smile) Time to get New!"
- if you think this way, then you are not a "Christian".
Accept that you aren't - as the view of Self, in many eyes today, deteriates the aspect of Christianity that they want to express worldwide.
If you still think you are a so-called "Christian" - then your sect is a heresy.
And since you speak as a heretic - Welcome to my world.
P.S. I personally don't believe there are any heretics, but only the ones that Christianity has deemed.
- "God" has never designated any specific text or religious belief as heresy.
New Age Spiritual Leader:

Just my view on the matter, there are Christians hidden within our pseudo-Christian culture". Many go to church, many do not, many are RC, many are not.

I think our time in history right now, we have this sort of need for continuity with the past which makes it difficult for us to let go. That desire becomes a misplaced habit. And people get defensive and offensive because of that habit, trying to protect it.

On the positive side of that, is that when one tires of the habit, the search for Truth begins.

I know you seek a compliment, in calling me a "heretic", but I am more a heretic to the times, or more anachronistic in my Christian faith. There are a lot of them on the thread, though they may not know it in that way.

We live in the same world, our definitions are different because our world-views are different.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#456366 Jun 25, 2013
who="Anthony MN"
They tried for 250 years, but the blood of the martyrs in Catholic Church at Rome and elsewhere was seed for the faithful. Jesus founded the Catholic Church Kay. 2000 years later, whether you like it or not, the gates of hell have not prevailed.

**********

It isn't a matter of what I like, Anthony. I've known some good Catholics who love the Lord...but there is still much with the CC that needs to be corrected.

And yes, we've got a lot of good Protestants who love the Lord, but on both sides there are those who consider themselves 'better' than others...and some Protestant 'dogma' needs to be corrected.

All of both need to honor God, and their fellow Christians more. And all who profess to be Christian should be more Christlike.

It is shameful to read this forum, and read the shameful, hurtful things that are said about people.

Most Christians don't consider themselves 'sinners'...but most will wound the heart of their own 'loved'(?) ones over some disagreement. This wounds the heart of God...and it is SIN.

An old time hymn says of the gospel, that "it makes me love EVERYBODY". It's time that we believe the gospel.

KayMarie

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#456367 Jun 25, 2013
who="wilderide"
But if the future is knowable in the first place, then that is only possible if there is fate. And if there is fate, then there can't be free-will.
If God knows you will do something, can you do otherwise? If yes, then God was wrong, of not, then you have no free will.

**********

You have it twisted, wilderide (is that "will deride"?)

God gives us a choice...and even when He knows what we will do (at present), He pleads with us to make the right choices.

KayMarie

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#456368 Jun 25, 2013
who="wilderide"
Will someone please get "truth" back on their meds? Where is the nurse?

******

Go easy on her. She just isn't fluent in English. She tries, but she has a very hard life.

KM

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#456369 Jun 25, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The center of the world was Rome. Jerusalem was a backwater Roman province. The Romans thoroughly destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. The Churches in Rome and the near east are what kept the spread of Christianity going.
Keep studying Mr. History, you've got a long way to go.
~~~

A REAL CHRISTIAN ATTEMPTS TO SAY WHAT THE FATHER SAYS...JUST AS JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES...

ROMAN CATHOLIC HISTORY IS FOUNDED UPON CONJECTURE FABLES AND MYTHS FROM IT'S INCEPTION...

IT IS ROOTED IN PAGANISM...

JERUSALEM IS THE CITY OF GOD...ROME WAS FIRST MENTIONED....BY PAUL

ROME WAS NOT ESTABLISHED IN CHRIST BEFORE THE APOSTLE PAUL ARRIVED
and there is no proof that Peter ever did..

Pail wrote
Rom_1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

Jerusalem was the City of God )OF THE GREAT KING... from ancient history...and still is today

Psa 48:1 A Song and Psalm for the sons of Korah. Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.

Psa 48:2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

Psa 48:3 God is known in her palaces for a refuge.

Psa 48:4 For, lo, the kings were assembled, they passed by together.

Psa 48:5 They saw it, and so they marvelled; they were troubled, and hasted away.

Psa 48:6 Fear took hold upon them there, and pain, as of a woman in travail.

Psa 48:7 Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with an east wind.

Psa 48:8 As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the LORD of
hosts, in the city of our God: God will establish it for ever. Selah.

Psa 48:9 We have thought of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.

Psa 48:10 According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.

Psa 48:11 Let mount Zion rejoice, let the daughters of Judah be glad, because of thy judgments.

Psa 48:12 Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof.

Psa 48:13 Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following.

Psa 48:14 For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.
Human Being

Ville Platte, LA

#456370 Jun 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
But how do you know either of those things are true?
<quoted text>
Well, if God knows the outcome, can you do otherwise? That's exactly what I'm asking.
In other words, for example, does God know before you were born how your life will go, and whether you will be sent to Heaven or Hell upon your death? And if God knows these things, aren't they your fate? If you truly had free will, then God would not know the outcome until you freely decided it.
wilderide:

We know things are true by beginning with presuppositions, and then reasoning them out. So I had to start with the presupposition that God is omniscient, and you did not. Its as simple as that.

You are just restating the posit you made, and it doesn't get past your presupposition that God's omniscience doesn't exist if free will exists.( Its in your last statement in the post here.) I pointed out in the last post that God is not definable, or beyond our ability to define. So what you need to do is present an argument to me that God is definable, and not beyond our ability to define. And that is going to be tough for you, since a definable God is necessarily finite, and it is accepted God in eternal/infinite. So the onus is on you to show how God's omniscience is contrary to free-will.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#456371 Jun 25, 2013
Catholics teach all born are guilty of the original sin of Adam and Eve.. This was God's reaction to same: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life... Where does He say: And from this day forth, all newborn will have their soul stained with the original sin of Adam/Eve....or words to that affect...
youtube

AOL

#456372 Jun 25, 2013
.

ANTICHRIST ..on world stage



.
Human Being

Ville Platte, LA

#456373 Jun 25, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Anthony MN"
They tried for 250 years, but the blood of the martyrs in Catholic Church at Rome and elsewhere was seed for the faithful. Jesus founded the Catholic Church Kay. 2000 years later, whether you like it or not, the gates of hell have not prevailed.
**********
It isn't a matter of what I like, Anthony. I've known some good Catholics who love the Lord...but there is still much with the CC that needs to be corrected.
And yes, we've got a lot of good Protestants who love the Lord, but on both sides there are those who consider themselves 'better' than others...and some Protestant 'dogma' needs to be corrected.
All of both need to honor God, and their fellow Christians more. And all who profess to be Christian should be more Christlike.
It is shameful to read this forum, and read the shameful, hurtful things that are said about people.
Most Christians don't consider themselves 'sinners'...but most will wound the heart of their own 'loved'(?) ones over some disagreement. This wounds the heart of God...and it is SIN.
An old time hymn says of the gospel, that "it makes me love EVERYBODY". It's time that we believe the gospel.
KayMarie
confrinting-KayMarie

Very well said.

Amen. Amen.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#456374 Jun 25, 2013
893 Whadda bout it Dan...willing to learn...talk to me!!!! Thanks...

I found those listed....What I posted, evidently was sort of a recap of what is later gone into detail... But...I am having a difficulty with the first paragraph under that heading... Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. I can see, by their thinking, where Joh 3:5, and Mt 28:18-19, supports it. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

What Scripture teaches: ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
truth

Perth, Australia

#456375 Jun 25, 2013
do you liked gun ..asked your nurse..
truth

Perth, Australia

#456376 Jun 25, 2013
Cannibal=did you find that..no why should be..someone need be mad..whats diploma people pride will do if honest people disappear?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#456377 Jun 25, 2013
21990 Dan....if you responded I missed it...or forgot.. Dan wrote: Luke 1:28 is the passage. Romans 3:23 deals with personal sin. Jesus Christ was without personal sin, I hope you'd admit. Mary was conceived without sin as to be a stainless vessel for the New Covenant.--------

Why are you refusing to answer my question?? Quote: What does this mean to you: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.....

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#456378 Jun 25, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
53 Then the Jews fell to disputing with one another, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Whereupon Jesus said to them, Believe me when I tell you this; you can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood. 55 The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 56 My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink. 57 He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, lives continually in me, and I in him. 58 As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me. 59 Such is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not as it was with your fathers, who ate manna and died none the less; the man who eats this bread will live eternally.
Thanks for proving my words 100% correct..

The natural man cannot understand Scripture that was authored by the Holy Spirit for the Spirit of man... That is why you believe Christ taught that we are to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood!!!! Which are acts of cannibals!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#456379 Jun 25, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what the metaphor is and so does the pope. You, being hopelessly clueless, try to play words games in order avoid appearing the idiot you are, but it's too late. Not sure how you did it, but even the fundies think so too.
You look great with egg all over your face...stop trying to wipe it off!!!
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#456380 Jun 25, 2013
OldJG wrote: OldJG wrote: There seems to be much confusion on this forum. Are the Roman Catholics stating the church catholic (universal)is the same animal as the Roman Catholic church of today? If so, who moved the center of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome? Why the change? Why all the focus on Rome? Did Jesus tell the apostles to build the vatican? Did Peter wear one of those funny little hats the popes wear? How about the capes? Do the popes wear the capes because they believe they are the Superman of Christianity? Has anyone seen them fly? Cly said, quote, "Then what happened to the small c Christian Church?" End quote. Cly, it is the small "c" catholic church. The small "c" catholic "universal" church was resurrected in the Reformation. Cayl said, quote, "How come Catholicism is remarkably similar before the Roman Empire legalized the faith, and after?" End quote. It is not. Carl said, quote, "If you believe Christ commanded the Bible be the sole authoRity on his Ministry, could you kindly state book, chapter and verse where he says it?" End quote. Why was the Bible written? Did God write it for exercise? Why didn't God ever mention Roman Catholic in His Bible? What other authority would there be for God if not the very inspired Word of God? Is it Rome? LOL LOL LOL LOL The popes? LOL LOL LOL LOL Maybe you Cly? You might tell us is was the margarine but I believe it might have been the butter? What do you think Cyal? LOL LOL LOL LOL Aylc said, quote, "Do you think the title 'Roman' Catholic has something to do with the 'Roman Empire'? If so, could you explain why." End quote. Roman Catholic.....Roman Empire.....hand and glove. The state and the church were run by the same people. Pretty simple. Cly said, quote, "How come your interpretations of scripture are not the same as the first Christians and the Catholic Church's interpretations are? looks like you're going to need to play stupid to sidestep these facts." End quote. We Christians leave the "stupid sidestep" to you Roman Catholics. Our interpretations of the Bible are exactly the same as the first Christians. You Roman Catholics are the corrupters!
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Couple lies in your post old fella. You are a Deacon of Jesus Christ so I would think you'd be concerned about spreading untruths(he he)
'Roman' Catholic are not called so because of any 'hand and glove' connection to the Roman Empire. In fact the Roman Empire was long gone before Protestants (Anglicans) decided to label the Catholic Church 'Roman'. This was done around the 17th century. And they didn't apply it because of any affiliation to the Roman Empire either. They did it because they thought they were another branch of the Catholic Church, so they wanted to separate us with a title. In fact, it was a bit of a slur along with 'Papist' Cathlics, Romanish Catholics...
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_ (term)
For the Catholic Church, the title 'Roman' isn't an official title. In all the 16 documents of Vatican II,'Roman' is never used. Now I heard a Priest explain to me, that the title has to do with the 'Roman' rite, but it doesn't sound like that is entirely accurate either. I heard others say it was because of the Roman Curia that we have that name. That isn't accurate either. The bottom line is that the title 'Roman' grew rapidly and the Church didn't really care what the world labeled them. Today, they use it as the a reference to the Diocese of Rome, where the headquarters are.
www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
So you keep telling your Bible students that Constantine put that title there...ok?
Lies? No lies. Are you going to tell us the Roman Empire had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic church and vice versa? The true capital of Christianity is Jerusalem. Why have your popes NEVER sat in Jerusalem? Also, how many popes have visited Israel since 1948?

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) 4 min RiversideRedneck 56,282
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 17 min Freebird USA 182,975
Basketball is Stupid (Nov '11) 26 min JOHN 20
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 42 min Toby 106,082
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr NACKED TRUTH 44,994
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Dr Banonator 971,871
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Sam Hall 445,933
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) Thu kobechi3 71
More from around the web