Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 579,048
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Read more
Anthony MN

United States

#458755 Jul 3, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that not contradicting???? "Don't drink blood" "its O.k..drink blood!!!!???"
He said drink His blood. Tell Him He's wrong.
Anthony MN

United States

#458756 Jul 3, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
How do "us"know whom is in Heaven to intercede for "us"???
They're called Saints. They are in the presence of God. They pray to Him for us if we ask, just like you asking one of your SBC friends to pray for you.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#458757 Jul 3, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof? The nuns prayed for another dying nun to Bl. John Paul asking for his intercession before God and she was cured of an incurable disease. That's crap to you.
And when your fellow pew warmer intercedes by praying for a sick congregant, and they get better, that's not crap.
Okie dokie.
Aunt....answer his question...."Why do you think you have the authority to declare the old guy in your congregation who died last month and who was "saved" is in heaven (even though you have no clue about his personal life)"

Its a valid question....how do you know the old guy is in Heaven?????
Anthony MN

United States

#458758 Jul 3, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently there is no one in your congregation,, including you,that follows the teaching of drinking blood of Christ, as you say He commanded...why is that????
Your words: I don't know a single Catholic who has never received the blood of Christ.....
Yeah, um, we don't drink the blood of anything/anyone except Jesus.
Tiger Lily

New Zealand

#458759 Jul 3, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
How do "us"know whom is in Heaven to intercede for "us"???
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.__John 3:13

Plain and simple.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#458760 Jul 3, 2013
"We Catholics are guaranteed that the Pope will never go against sacred scripture...

**********

So the Pope is not human?

KayMarie
Anthony MN

Andover, MN

#458762 Jul 3, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Aunt....answer his question...."Why do you think you have the authority to declare the old guy in your congregation who died last month and who was "saved" is in heaven (even though you have no clue about his personal life)"
Its a valid question....how do you know the old guy is in Heaven?????
Actually that was my question to him. He said he was because he was "saved". I assume you'd say the same thing. The question remains; why do you and chuck get to decide who's saved and in heaven and the Catholic Church can't.
Disciple

San Diego, CA

#458763 Jul 3, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
He thought like a protestant. He was raised a protestant. He was educated as a protestant. He found truth in the Catholic Church.
You don't know who's right, but you know who's not, is that your position?
In case you missed it I've already stated my position.
His understanding of truth is well aligned with catholics, on the other hand and unfortunately he is out of alignment with God.
Sorry Anthony no middle ground and no compromise.
LTM

Chelmsford, Canada

#458764 Jul 3, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
He said drink His blood. Tell Him He's wrong.
show me the scripture where Jesus said to drink his blood
Disciple

San Diego, CA

#458765 Jul 3, 2013
For those of us who love America.........

Ray Charles. America the beautiful.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...
Anthony MN

United States

#458766 Jul 3, 2013
Disciple wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you missed it I've already stated my position.
His understanding of truth is well aligned with catholics, on the other hand and unfortunately he is out of alignment with God.
Sorry Anthony no middle ground and no compromise.
He says his understanding is in line with God an the apostles. His theological academic credentials are beyond question. What are your credentials? And by what authority do you declare he is in error and you are not?
Anthony MN

United States

#458767 Jul 3, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>show me the scripture where Jesus said to drink his blood
I thought you were a student of the bible. Do you skip the parts you don't like?
LTM

Chelmsford, Canada

#458768 Jul 3, 2013
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner ... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic canon law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered "in every place."

cont
LTM

Chelmsford, Canada

#458769 Jul 3, 2013
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.
LTM

Chelmsford, Canada

#458770 Jul 3, 2013
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

Second, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26,“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

www.gotquestions.org
Disciple

San Diego, CA

#458771 Jul 3, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
He says his understanding is in line with God an the apostles. His theological academic credentials are beyond question. What are your credentials? And by what authority do you declare he is in error and you are not?
What are yours to say his credentials are beyond question?
See that is the problem with catholics they believe anything they are tod even when Biblical evidence is hitting them in the head.
He is a heretic in the right place and out of alignment.
Keep him.
Anthony MN

Andover, MN

#458772 Jul 3, 2013
LTM wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).
In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.
You must've called in sick the day John 6 was covered.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#458773 Jul 3, 2013
053
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
He said drink His blood. Tell Him He's wrong.
You can't answer my question Aunt, because it will reveal the truth!!!! And that is a no no for you and your ilk....

Word History: A coward is one who "turns tail." The word comes from Old French couart, coart, "coward," and is related to Italian codardo, "coward." Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, "tail" (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, "cowardly lion," was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.

I see your tail!!!!!
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#458774 Jul 3, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
But and however....Catholics say the Bible is not the only Word of God!!!!! They say their "traditions" and their "magnastrium" (misspelled am sure)are also the Word of God....So, they can "trump" and Scripture they want by evoking these two other sources of the Word of God...that they...and only they have!!!!!
And they have the gall to say that Christ is the redeemer of the world!!! Imagine that!!!!Christ, a Jew on earth for thirty-three years or so, of the Race that God repeatedly calls His chosen, has abandoned them and because He favors the Catholics, and only the Catholics, He gave them "the inside track" that only they have!!!!
It ain't our fault some Protesters showed up and put a false label on our Bible. You may think by doing that, you just established a truth. In reality, you opened up a doctrinal mess that is ever evolving.
Truth is truth, Ox.
Jesus Christ never established a Bible for the foundation of His Ministry. He established a visible hierarchal Church that is still here today. This same Church established a Bible 400 yrs after the crucifixion.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#458775 Jul 3, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
You must've called in sick the day John 6 was covered.
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
And you said you knew of no Catholics whom drinks the blood of Christ......why is that????

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) 3 min Aerobatty 817,575
To all woman . 4 min Mackstone 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 7 min Seentheotherside 1,971
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 9 min Tamizhan 5,922
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 16 min The_Box 9,239
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 36 min Happy Lesbo 609,821
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 45 min AN NFL FAN 121,450
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 57 min RiccardoFire 97,987
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 270,110
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr bad bob 176,207
More from around the web