Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 543,111
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
bible nut

Elk Grove Village, IL

#461084 Jul 11, 2013
Mercy me wrote:
I have noticed others on this forum correwcting you and you keep on posting lies about the Church over and over again. Please stop.
Do you agree with all the popes allowing child molesters to become priest?And not terminating them when they get caught molesting kids? Yes or no please.

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461085 Jul 11, 2013
Mercy me wrote:
<quoted text>She tries to understand difficult things but she gets disoriented. She is a former Catholic with a grudge so she takes up with Jack Chick and Co. She also believes in contraception and tells young teenagers its okay to us contraception. She is a highly emotional.
again with the Jack Chick
I never heard that name till you posted it to me .
I do not lie.. I looked it up when you accused me ..
Nit posting from any site even similar .
But you know that.

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461086 Jul 11, 2013
Mercy me wrote:
<quoted text>I feel so sorry for you, you are so naivete. Of course Catholics were taught about the past , the hisory of the church pre VaticanII days. Where do you get your ideas from anyway? You know pretestants burned the witches in the Salam witch treials. I think maybe history wasn't your greatest subject. Please quit commenting on the Catholic Church. I asked you nice, now please stop.
No we were not ...I am older than you and left the Church in the late sixties

Please do not tell me what I know or Knew.

Since Vatican 2. The Church has changed ...for the better

Was the Borgia,pope infallible ..We were taught they all were ..
Some were Not.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#461087 Jul 11, 2013
Mercy me wrote:
<quoted text>I feel so sorry for you, you are so naivete. Of course Catholics were taught about the past , the hisory of the church pre VaticanII days. Where do you get your ideas from anyway? You know pretestants burned the witches in the Salam witch treials. I think maybe history wasn't your greatest subject. Please quit commenting on the Catholic Church. I asked you nice, now please stop.
~~~

IS IT NOT JUST A NORMAL ROMAN CATHOLIC THAT STANDS UP FOR A POST THAT SAYS TO ALL

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican
The Vatican issued a document Tuesday restating its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

AND ASK TRUE CHRISTIANS... TO PLEASE STOP DEFENDING THEMSELVES..

AND BUCKLE UNDER (BECOME A SLAVE) UNDER THE DOMINION OF THE ROMAN

CATHOLIC CHURCH...AND JOIN UP TO THEIR FABLED RELIGIOUS SYSTEM?

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461088 Jul 11, 2013
Though I did like the LATIN MASS..

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461089 Jul 11, 2013
bible nut wrote:
<quoted text>Is that light 120 or 240?
He is the only light

The Way to the Father.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#461090 Jul 11, 2013
The Unfinished Gospel

The earliest surviving copies of Mark end at Mark 16:8. There the women who have gone to anoint Jesus' body find a young man (neaniskos) wearing a white robe in Jesus' tomb and flee in fright.

It's an odd ending, and to smooth out that ending with the rest of the canonical gospels, various late redactors added disparate endings to Mark, including the one that commonly is printed today.

Bruce Metzger notes in his commentary on the Greek New Testament that three theories are common in scholarship for explaining Mark's strange ending at 16:8: The original ending was lost. Or Mark's author actually intended to end his gospel on a rather odd note with the women fleeing the tomb. Or Mark never got around to finishing his gospel.

But I believe there is a fourth option: Mark's original ending became problematic and was therefore redacted.

Fast forward from Mark's writing in the 70's to 80-something AD. Matthew's and Luke's authors are writing their gospels. Luke claims at 21:32 Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things [including his second coming] have happened." Matthew's author puts a similar statement in Jesus' mouth at 24:34.

Fast forward a little more to roughly 90 AD. The primary author of John finishes his gospel at John 20, not John 21, as it ends now. Don't believe me? Consult Tertullian's writings. In the second century, he quotes John 20:30-31 as the ending of that gospel. But more about that later.

Early Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime. Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 feed into this as do a few other passages in all three synoptic gospels. Paul believed this too. To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 7:29-31: "Time is short, so buy stuff as if it is not yours to keep." But modern Christians merely apologize these passages away. They make arguments such as the words "this generation" do not necessarily mean the people living in Jesus' time.

Evan Powell argues in The Unfinished Gospel, correctly I think, that Mark's missing ending also played into the theme of Jesus swiftly returning and that the missing ending was a little too clear about it to be apologized away.

When Jesus' generation obviously had all passed away, early Christians came to doubt their faith because of the failed promise.

Houston, we have a problem.

Enter John 21, John's second ending, sometimes referred to as John's appendix. It was added in the 2nd century to explain away the failed promise of a swift return. In this added chapter, Peter asks Jesus what will become of the Beloved Disciple. The text continues:
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die.
Voilà! Jesus didn't promise to return so soon! You guys merely just misunderstood.

Because of the great variance in the Greek used in John 21 from the rest of John, it is clear chapter 21 is not the work of the primary author. But did this second author make up the text from whole cloth? Apparently not.

For reasons that are complex, it appears this 2nd ending in John may be based loosely on the missing ending of Mark. If so, it is likely that the Beloved Disciple (John? Doubtful. Mark's neaniskos in the tomb in chapter 16 and in chapter 14? Maybe.) was probably promised that Jesus would return in his lifetime in Mark's missing ending. And if so, it appears that different redactors handled that problem differently. John's redactor provided an addition ending that claims the "brothers" had misunderstood what Jesus said. Mark's redactor simply deleted the problem altogether, only to have even later redactors add various endings to close the hole the deleted ending created.

Christians. Gotta love 'em! But keep an eye on the silverware when they’re around.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#461091 Jul 11, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
IS IT NOT JUST A NORMAL ROMAN CATHOLIC THAT STANDS UP FOR A POST THAT SAYS TO ALL
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican
The Vatican issued a document Tuesday restating its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.
AND ASK TRUE CHRISTIANS... TO PLEASE STOP DEFENDING THEMSELVES..
AND BUCKLE UNDER (BECOME A SLAVE) UNDER THE DOMINION OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH...AND JOIN UP TO THEIR FABLED RELIGIOUS SYSTEM?
~~~

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE THAT ANY ONE CAN DOCUMENT

WHAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

THEY SAY

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican
The Vatican issued a document Tuesday restating its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

the Roman Catholic Church cannot give one scripture ...

from GENESIS THROUGH REVELATION

TO VALIDATE A REASON FOR THEIR EXISTENCE...

I HAVE CHALLENGED THEM SINCE 2007...AND NO ONE CAN GIVE SUCH A SCRIPTURE..

THE BIBLE SAYS...

Amos 3:7

(DRB) For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.

(Geneva) Surely the Lord God will doe nothing, but he reueileth his secrete vnto his seruantes the Prophets.

(KJV) Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

~~~~
I HAVE ASK THEM TO GIVE A PROPHECY ...AND THEY CANNOT...

THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ASSUMED THEMSELVES INTO GOD'S PLAN OF

REDEMPTION..

YET

THEY DO NOT HAVE ONE VERSE IN THE OLD OR THE NEW COVENANT FOR A

FOUNDATION ...NON WHATSOEVER.

Is this not the reason that they have attempted to teach that their conjecture TRUMPS THE WORD OF GOD?

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#461092 Jul 11, 2013
who="Clay "
I went to a 'theology on tap' last night. That's where young adults, ages 18-39 get together and discuss the faith over a glass of wine or pint.
Before some certain Ministers respond to that and tell us we're going to Hell, let me say that some Protestant groups also have their own version.
Anyway, last nights discussion was 'the New Evangelization'. Its obvious something profound is happening as the Holy Spirit is making a move to combat yrs and yrs of malicious slander at the hands of Protestantism and secularism. The place was filled to capacity with people standing in the back hallways. I chatted with a young Deacon who'll be ordained a Priest next year. The kid has got fire and the reports are that the seminaries are filled with men just like him; full of zeal and fire.
I'm very proud to be contributing in my own small way to this 'New Evangelization'. Even if its on a merry-go -round endless forum like this.

**********
This is scary! Some Protestants try to debate some CC teachings that we see as anti-Scriptural.(Sorry about those who get combative in their efforts...however, the debate is about the CC, NOT about any of you personally.)

But CC's accuse them of years of malicious slander.

If this continues, CC's will feel justified in another Inquisition.

KayMarie
bible nut

Elk Grove Village, IL

#461093 Jul 11, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
He is the only light
The Way to the Father.
So says the unauthored book?
Chess Jurist

Cleveland, OH

#461094 Jul 11, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
The Unfinished Gospel
The earliest surviving copies of Mark end at Mark 16:8. There the women who have gone to anoint Jesus' body find a young man (neaniskos) wearing a white robe in Jesus' tomb and flee in fright.
It's an odd ending, and to smooth out that ending with the rest of the canonical gospels, various late redactors added disparate endings to Mark, including the one that commonly is printed today.
Bruce Metzger notes in his commentary on the Greek New Testament that three theories are common in scholarship for explaining Mark's strange ending at 16:8: The original ending was lost. Or Mark's author actually intended to end his gospel on a rather odd note with the women fleeing the tomb. Or Mark never got around to finishing his gospel.
But I believe there is a fourth option: Mark's original ending became problematic and was therefore redacted.
Fast forward from Mark's writing in the 70's to 80-something AD. Matthew's and Luke's authors are writing their gospels. Luke claims at 21:32 Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things [including his second coming] have happened." Matthew's author puts a similar statement in Jesus' mouth at 24:34.
Fast forward a little more to roughly 90 AD. The primary author of John finishes his gospel at John 20, not John 21, as it ends now. Don't believe me? Consult Tertullian's writings. In the second century, he quotes John 20:30-31 as the ending of that gospel. But more about that later.
Early Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime. Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 feed into this as do a few other passages in all three synoptic gospels. Paul believed this too. To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 7:29-31: "Time is short, so buy stuff as if it is not yours to keep." But modern Christians merely apologize these passages away. They make arguments such as the words "this generation" do not necessarily mean the people living in Jesus' time.
Evan Powell argues in The Unfinished Gospel, correctly I think, that Mark's missing ending also played into the theme of Jesus swiftly returning and that the missing ending was a little too clear about it to be apologized away.
When Jesus' generation obviously had all passed away, early Christians came to doubt their faith because of the failed promise.
Houston, we have a problem.
Enter John 21, John's second ending, sometimes referred to as John's appendix. It was added in the 2nd century to explain away the failed promise of a swift return. In this added chapter, Peter asks Jesus what will become of the Beloved Disciple. The text continues:
<quoted text>
Voilà! Jesus didn't promise to return so soon! You guys merely just misunderstood.
Because of the great variance in the Greek used in John 21 from the rest of John, it is clear chapter 21 is not the work of the primary author. But did this second author make up the text from whole cloth? Apparently not.
For reasons that are complex, it appears this 2nd ending in John may be based loosely on the missing ending of Mark. If so, it is likely that the Beloved Disciple (John? Doubtful. Mark's neaniskos in the tomb in chapter 16 and in chapter 14? Maybe.) was probably promised that Jesus would return in his lifetime in Mark's missing ending. And if so, it appears that different redactors handled that problem differently. John's redactor provided an addition ending that claims the "brothers" had misunderstood what Jesus said. Mark's redactor simply deleted the problem altogether, only to have even later redactors add various endings to close the hole the deleted ending created.
Christians. Gotta love 'em! But keep an eye on the silverware when they’re around.
Typos:

Chess Jurist wrote - John wrote
addition ending - additional ending
merely just - merely

Dang scribe.

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461095 Jul 11, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
The Unfinished Gospel
The earliest surviving copies of Mark end at Mark 16:8. There the women who have gone to anoint Jesus' body find a young man (neaniskos) wearing a white robe in Jesus' tomb and flee in fright.
It's an odd ending, and to smooth out that ending with the rest of the canonical gospels, various late redactors added disparate endings to Mark, including the one that commonly is printed today.
Bruce Metzger notes in his commentary on the Greek New Testament that three theories are common in scholarship for explaining Mark's strange ending at 16:8: The original ending was lost. Or Mark's author actually intended to end his gospel on a rather odd note with the women fleeing the tomb. Or Mark never got around to finishing his gospel.
But I believe there is a fourth option: Mark's original ending became problematic and was therefore redacted.
Fast forward from Mark's writing in the 70's to 80-something AD. Matthew's and Luke's authors are writing their gospels. Luke claims at 21:32 Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things [including his second coming] have happened." Matthew's author puts a similar statement in Jesus' mouth at 24:34.
Fast forward a little more to roughly 90 AD. The primary author of John finishes his gospel at John 20, not John 21, as it ends now. Don't believe me? Consult Tertullian's writings. In the second century, he quotes John 20:30-31 as the ending of that gospel. But more about that later.
Early Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime. Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 feed into this as do a few other passages in all three synoptic gospels. Paul believed this too. To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 7:29-31: "Time is short, so buy stuff as if it is not yours to keep." But modern Christians merely apologize these passages away. They make arguments such as the words "this generation" do not necessarily mean the people living in Jesus' time.
Evan Powell argues in The Unfinished Gospel, correctly I think, that Mark's missing ending also played into the theme of Jesus swiftly returning and that the missing ending was a little too clear about it to be apologized away.
When Jesus' generation obviously had all passed away, early Christians came to doubt their faith because of the failed promise.
Houston, we have a problem.
Enter John 21, John's second ending, sometimes referred to as John's appendix. It was added in the 2nd century to explain away the failed promise of a swift return. In this added chapter, Peter asks Jesus what will become of the Beloved Disciple. The text continues:
<quoted text>
Voilà! Jesus didn't promise to return so soon! You guys merely just misunderstood.
Because of the great variance in the Greek used in John 21 from the rest of John, it is clear chapter 21 is not the work of the primary author. But did this second author make up the text from whole cloth? Apparently not.
For reasons that are complex, it appears this 2nd ending in John may be based loosely on the missing ending of Mark. If so, it is likely that the Beloved Disciple (John? Doubtful. Mark's neaniskos in the tomb in chapter 16 and in chapter 14? Maybe.) was probably promised that Jesus would return in his lifetime in Mark's missing ending. And if so, it appears that different redactors handled that problem differently. John's redactor provided an addition ending that claims the "brothers" had misunderstood what Jesus said. Mark's redactor simply deleted the problem altogether, only to have even later redactors add various endings to close the hole the deleted ending created.
Christians. Gotta love 'em! But keep an eye on the silverware when they’re around.
It is clear they thought His Second coming was soon..BUT AT THE TME

HE preaching ..He had not yet been crucified.Then he died ..left them .

after that He did indeed return to them after the Resurrection .

And they were all alive .
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#461096 Jul 11, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
You wrote
And why do you, Confrinting "avoid" dismiss and reject the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:13-21 regarding His One (and only one) TRUE (Universal-Catholic Church!!.....
NO MATTER WHICH WAY I TURN IT...
IT DOES NOT SAY ANY THING ABOUT A TRUE (Universal-Catholic Church!!
The fact that it was the "only Church" around at that time confirms it as One-Universal-Catholic Church.---AND--The fact that the Church came first---then the bible over 350 years after Apostles established Jesus' 1st Church at Antioch!---AND-- The fact is that Ignatius referred to the Church as Catholic in 057AD.---AND--- The fact that it has been authenticated, proven verified as the Catholic Church for over 2000 years. Yes-Coinfrinting--(for YOU) no matter which way you turn it, it always comes out heresy, distortion, lies and anti-catholic deceit which is the entire basis of your "bible only" so-called ministry!!!

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461098 Jul 11, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that it was the "only Church" around at that time confirms it as One-Universal-Catholic Church.---AND--The fact that the Church came first---then the bible over 350 years after Apostles established Jesus' 1st Church at Antioch!---AND-- The fact is that Ignatius referred to the Church as Catholic in 057AD.---AND--- The fact that it has been authenticated, proven verified as the Catholic Church for over 2000 years. Yes-Coinfrinting--(for YOU) no matter which way you turn it, it always comes out heresy, distortion, lies and anti-catholic deceit which is the entire basis of your "bible only" so-called ministry!!!
But according to John Paul we worship the same Savior. How do we explain that.

Any religious institution with to much monet ..And or power can become as the TEMPLE of Jesus time .

Too immersed in the institution ..rather than to focus on God .

The Jews should not have been persecuted using Gids name by the Church endorsed monarchs,

The witches shoukd not have been burned either.

Megachurch immersed in wealth are just as wrong ..imo

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#461101 Jul 11, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is clear they thought His Second coming was soon..BUT AT THE TME
HE preaching ..He had not yet been crucified.Then he died ..left them .
after that He did indeed return to them after the Resurrection .
And they were all alive .
Hon, you need to read Matthew 24:34 in context. Let me help you:
Matthew wrote:
<quoted text>

29“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.30“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.31“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
I don't recall all those events occurring before the (putative) first return, let alone the clear description of the Jerusalem siege in the passages preceding that quote. The siege took place 40 years after Jesus' death.

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461103 Jul 11, 2013
NOTHING but THE CROSS of JESUS

So true

No denomination ..No buildings,.No Pope or Televangelist.

Can match that power!!!

That should be our focus..not whose Church is older ..imo

“Let the Children”

Since: Aug 08

Come To Me

#461104 Jul 11, 2013
Tempest wrote:
<quoted text>What are you posting? Can't understand anything you post.
Sorry for the typos ..what is not clear
bible freak

Elk Grove Village, IL

#461105 Jul 11, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
NOTHING but THE CROSS of JESUS
So true
No denomination ..No buildings,.No Pope or Televangelist.
Can match that power!!!
That should be our focus..not whose Church is older ..imo
Oh yeah!!! My god has a bigger D$$K than yourr god!!!!!

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#461107 Jul 11, 2013
who="Chess Jurist"
Hon, you need to read Matthew 24:34 in context. Let me help you:
<quoted text>
I don't recall all those events occurring before the (putative) first return, let alone the clear description of the Jerusalem siege in the passages preceding that quote. The siege took place 40 years after Jesus' death.

**********
Those events have not yet occurred. But Bible prophecy can place many events in one portion, making it necessary for the Holy Spirit to reveal the progression of events.

For instance, God declared that He would scatter the Jews around the world, but that He would bring them back to Israel. This has happened at least twice, but presently He is bringing them back for what seems to be the final event.

He declared that He would re-unite Israel and Judah under one king, and this occurred in 1948.

Let HIM sort it all out...just be ready.

KayMarie
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#461108 Jul 11, 2013
Clay wrote:
I went to a 'theology on tap' last night. That's where young adults, ages 18-39 get together and discuss the faith over a glass of wine or pint.
Before some certain Ministers respond to that and tell us we're going to Hell, let me say that some Protestant groups also have their own version.
Anyway, last nights discussion was 'the New Evangelization'. Its obvious something profound is happening as the Holy Spirit is making a move to combat yrs and yrs of malicious slander at the hands of Protestantism and secularism. The place was filled to capacity with people standing in the back hallways. I chatted with a young Deacon who'll be ordained a Priest next year. The kid has got fire and the reports are that the seminaries are filled with men just like him; full of zeal and fire.
I'm very proud to be contributing in my own small way to this 'New Evangelization'. Even if its on a merry-go -round endless forum like this.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/wha...

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
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Dr_Zorderz 259,707
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 min Disgusted 441,332
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 10 min Classic 1,813
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 15 min Freebird USA 173,837
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Aura Mytha 740,220
Word association game (Aug '08) 18 min andet1987 53,348
Looking for lawsuits in Michigan against DHS/CP... (Jul '11) 18 min macomb county 74
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Patrick 227,870
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 19 hr gangsxofxroses_andii 157

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••