Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 548,672
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465225 Jul 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like it's your agenda, not mine. I think your deep-seated hatred for anthing Catholic is influencing you posts here Hermi. Please take a few moments and read this FROM YOUR OWN CHURCH:
A fews point from the site:
We are convinced from our own study that the Eastern and Western theological traditions have been in substantial agreement, since the patristic period, on a number of fundamental affirmations about the Holy Trinity that bear on theFilioque debate:
•both traditions clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis or person within the divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way of talking about God’s action in creatures;
•although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both traditions confess the Holy Spirit to be God, of the same divine substance (homoousios) as Father and Son;

blah blah EDITED FOR SPACE

AND
•that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue con-cerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;
•that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
•that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
•that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
•that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
•that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
•that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
•that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-cathol...
==========

I FORGOT THIS PART:
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
SCOBA Chairman: Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh
Catholic Chairman: Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk of Cincinnati

If you knew Orthodoxy you would have the knowledge that Bishop Maximus is known as an ecumenist so this is no suprise. I have read many articles by respected Orthodox that have real troubling issues with Bishop Maximus and his ecumenist views. They believe, as I do , that he would compromise the True Faith. By the way Mr. Orthodox Expert, have sat and had coffee with Bishop Maximus=just my wife, my daughter and 1. Foe about 1 1/2 hours.A PhD Philosophy. A Brilliant and most humble man. So Ill talk to the Bishop and you go looking for more crud on the internet cause you just cant be wrong and let it go-that is becoming a Catholic dogma here

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465226 Jul 23, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
I DON'T PACK YOUR LUNCH ..YOU DO
WHEN IT'S TIME TO EAT,
YOU ONLY HAVE WHAT YOU PUT IN THE BAG..
It matters not to me if you "believe" you are a holy star that will shine in a heaven ... but when you state that those claims are based on truth, you are trying to deceive others simply because you first deceived your arrogant self.

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465227 Jul 23, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not credible...You know as much about salvation
If Clay suggests that you are saved ... will you THEN agree that Clay is indeed brilliant???

:)

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465228 Jul 23, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes - they don't believe in Jesus, and I am one to make sure they admit to this fact.
I will until they can state - through honesty that they do beleive in Jesus.
If they couldm they would not be a so-called "Christian", because Jesus didn't teach others to be "justified in his death", he taught to be justified in your Spirit.
Men changed and twisted Jesus' teachings to fit their own wild-eyed fantasies, which has caused many generations to not believe in Jesus.
You do the same as do others when you claim to know what Jesus preached. You admit you don't know whether he even lived ... so why would you claim to know that he actually made any statements whatsoever???

Catholics wrote the stories that a Jew came to earth to warn others that he would only save those of the Catholic faith ... and that he was coming back again to make that final judgment.

If you don't trust Catholics, why would you trust what they wrote in a book that was meant to start a new religion to serve only their selves???

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#465229 Jul 23, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
If Clay suggests that you are saved ... will you THEN agree that Clay is indeed brilliant???
:)
if clay would ever say that Oxbore is Saved, he[clay] should be admitted to a mental instution

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465230 Jul 23, 2013
A Proper Understanding of Key Words
It helps to look carefully at a few of the words John uses. In verse 6 John does not say “Whoever believes in Him does not sin,” but “Whoever abides in Him ...” That John understands believe and abide differently is clear from John 8:31 where he writes,“Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed in Him,‘If you abide in My word you are my disciples indeed.’” Believe is the condition for anyone who wants to be eternally saved, but abide is a condition for anyone who wants to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. The two are not the same. To believe is to be convinced of something, to abide means to remain or continue (in a sphere). The sphere John wants them to remain in is declared in his purpose statement as fellowship with God through Jesus Christ (1:3; see also 1:6-7). His exhortation to his readers, who he affectionately calls “little children,” is “abide in Him”(Jesus). So John has in view Christians who remain in fellowship with Jesus Christ—these Christians do not sin.

We must also carefully define the two verbs that are stated as negative consequences in verse 6:“neither seen Him or known Him.” Though these verbs are sometimes used by John in relation to salvation (John 3:36; 4:42; 6:69; 8:28; 10:38), they are also sometimes used by him to describe a deeper experience of more intimate knowledge of the Savior. Most lexicons recognize that “see”(horao) can refer to one’s perception and experience of something, especially in John’s literature (compare John 6:36; 12:45; 14:9; 15:24; 3 John 11). Likewise, John sometimes uses “know”(ginosko) to describe personal acquaintance, familiarity, or fellowship (John 14:7, 9; 17:3). We find in verse 6 that to see and to know both describe a deeper acquaintance with Jesus Christ. They are words well suited for John’s purpose in 1 John—fellowship with God.

Simply put, John is saying that those who remain in fellowship with Jesus Christ do not sin. Those who sin do not have the intimate experience with the Lord that is available to all believers.

More here:
http://gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes.asp...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465231 Jul 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like it's your agenda, not mine. I think your deep-seated hatred for anthing Catholic is influencing you posts here Hermi. Please take a few moments and read this FROM YOUR OWN CHURCH:

WHAT THE HECK I HAVE TO EDIT NO ROOM FOR MY POST

"The Filioque controversy is first of all a controversy over words. As a number of recent authors have pointed out, part of the r faith on this difficult issue;
•that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the
WOW NEEDED TO EDIT MORE BLAH
BLAH BLAH HOLD YOUR BRITCHES EDITED FOR SPACE
logians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
MORE BLAH EDITED SO I CAN POST
l.
•that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
•that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-cathol...
==========
So now, Anthony,the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is my Church's position on reunion. Gee, I didnt know the Church got our positions from them.You have a short memory. Remember what the "theologian academic consultants" did to your Church with Vatican 2?
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
SCOBA Chairman: Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh
Catholic Chairman: Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk of Cincinnati
If you knew Orthodoxy you would have the knowledge that Bishop Maximus is known as an ecumenist so this is no suprise. I have read many articles by respected Orthodox that have real troubling issues with Bishop Maximus and his ecumenist views. They believe, as I do , that he would compromise the True Faith.
Here is one view of Bishop Maximos:(talks about the Bishops ecumenist view on onphysites)
Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) RESTS WHOLLY ON THE THEOLOGICAL OPINION OF JEAN LEBON, A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST AND SCHOLAR, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others.
As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.
We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.
From Orthodox Tradition, VOL. IX, NO. 1, pp. 8-10.

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465232 Jul 23, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
June:
Do you think the mind is distinct from the body(brain)? If not, then how do you, or can you explain a conscious decision?
I don't know. But I do know that when the brain-cells quit functioning ... humans can think no more ... so my guess is, the cells in the brain keep thought active.

According to medical science fetuses don't have any brain activity until the brain-cells develop to the point where the brain is then activated.

I believe that our brains are programmed by our surroundings.

For instance ... Feral (wild) children raised with dogs, will think and behave in dog language and dog behavior, which other humans can't understand ... yet those children will never adapt to human society.

Anthony MN

Andover, MN

#465233 Jul 23, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Anthony MN"
No intellectuals or know-it-alls teach the "bible" was written many years after the fact. The OT was written long before, which is what St. Paul is referring to, he's not referring to the NT.
I understand pentecostals tend to fall into the anti-intellectual camp, but no serious bible scholar thinks the bible with the NT dropped out of the sky after Jesus's Ascension.
I'm sorry Kay, but no bible expert believes a single letter of the NT was written until at least 10 after Pentecost.
*********
Read a little more slowly. The point was not that Paul was asking for the Old Testament.
The point is that Paul's letter to Timothy was DURING THE 'PRESENT' TIME. Nothing of Paul's cloak was in the O.T. Paul was writing from prison WHILE he was there...not years later.
There is only ONE BIBLE EXPERT...the Holy Spirit.
KayMarie
Again, the earliest written NT text, which was written by St. Paul, dates to the early/mid 40's AD. Are you implying that he wrote other letters right after Christ ascended that AREN'T in the bible?
Anthony MN

Andover, MN

#465234 Jul 23, 2013
Osas7 wrote:
Philippians 4:3 is an amazing verse. It says:
And I urge you also, true companion, help these women [Euodia and Syntyche] who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names ARE IN the Book of Life.
Ah yes, pope St. Clement of Rome.

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465235 Jul 23, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>if clay would ever say that Oxbore is Saved, he[clay] should be admitted to a mental instution
How about you. Should you also be committed to a mental institution when you believe that YOU are saved and others are not?
Clay

United States

#465236 Jul 23, 2013
Osas7 wrote:
&#8206;'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it. Deuteronomy 1:39
&#8206;"But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Samuel 12:23
Pssst, OSAS7
Slow down on the Bible verse warfare. You're slinging the Bible verses like its dynamite.
Do you have any verses that shows where you're an authority to determine the Ministry of Jesus Christ?

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465237 Jul 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, pope St. Clement of Rome.
lol
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#465238 Jul 23, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I was hoping that this foolishness of OSAS would be hinderd if not stopped since it divides, but DOM comes back and they pick up again with a renewed vengeance.
I just don't understand why they cant see it that if you sin, after you are Saved, and don't confess that sin, you are not going to Heaven.
and we explain it to them and make it so simple that even a 3 y/o child could understand.
Satan has blinded them just as he did those in the day of Peter
Have you sinned sin you were saved? Have you confessed all of your sins since you were saved? The sins of commission and omission? What will happen if you have sinned and do not realize you have sinned? Then what? Will you go to hell? No, no. Don't be so foolish. Let me ask? Is there any sin the blood of Jesus does not cleanse? When God looks at you what does he see? If you are saved does He see you or does He see His Son? If He sees you He sees sin. When He sees His Son He sees righteousness. You and I traded our sin for His righteousness when we were saved. We have His righteousness and He will never ask for it back and we can't ever give it back.

The one blinded by satan is you. He has fooled you into believing you have to be perfect after you were saved and if you are not perfect you are headed for hell. That my friend is not the Gospel.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#465239 Jul 23, 2013
Better to be separated by truth than united in error.

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465240 Jul 23, 2013
Humans in religion seem to believe that thought is only possible because of a god or gods favoring humans, and that when the body dies the thoughts continue on to be with a god, or attach their selves to a new human body through reincarnation.

How silly.

All animals think and use plenty of reason. If that were not so, they would not survive to adulthood. This living issue is a very risky venture, and wild animals must be aware of their surroundings at all times.

For wild animals, trying to survive in the wild is comparable to humans being in the middle of a war zone with bullets whizzing by at every moment. It's not as noisy, but it is every bit as dangerous and takes courage and skill to survive.

I suggest that humans are simply arrogant in the idea that thought in humans is guided by something either divine or evil, and in other animals it is "put down" to simple instinct.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465241 Jul 23, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst, OSAS7
Slow down on the Bible verse warfare. You're slinging the Bible verses like its dynamite.
Do you have any verses that shows where you're an authority to determine the Ministry of Jesus Christ?
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

1 Jo 2:27

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint James, Canada

#465242 Jul 23, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Better to be separated by truth than united in error.
So others know truth and YOU are in error???

How tragic for you!

:)
Anthony MN

Andover, MN

#465243 Jul 23, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>==========
I FORGOT THIS PART:
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
SCOBA Chairman: Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh
Catholic Chairman: Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk of Cincinnati
If you knew Orthodoxy you would have the knowledge that Bishop Maximus is known as an ecumenist so this is no suprise. I have read many articles by respected Orthodox that have real troubling issues with Bishop Maximus and his ecumenist views. They believe, as I do , that he would compromise the True Faith. By the way Mr. Orthodox Expert, have sat and had coffee with Bishop Maximus=just my wife, my daughter and 1. Foe about 1 1/2 hours.A PhD Philosophy. A Brilliant and most humble man. So Ill talk to the Bishop and you go looking for more crud on the internet cause you just cant be wrong and let it go-that is becoming a Catholic dogma here
When Jesus prays to the Father "that they may all be one" the Catholic prayer in response is "yes, let's see if we can work to heal the schism and become one". The Orthodox prayer is "they can shove it where the sun don't shine!"

Thank God for your patriarchs and bishops!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465244 Jul 23, 2013
Response to Bishop Maximus Chair of Site Anthony Uses to Show Orthodox Support Reunion w Catholicism

"... As for those who, in defending the stand taken by Bishop Maximos and other ecumenists of like mind, claim that the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings have never been condemned by the Orthodox Church,

Let us cite the following statement from the Greek periodical Hagios Kyprianos,a sober and erudite periodical which has, for a number of years, published significant assessments of the ecumenical movement from a traditional Orthodox point of view:

"...Two Ecumenical Synods (the eighth / 879-880, concerning St. Photios the Great, and the ninth / 14th century, concerning St. Gregory Palamas) and at least fourteen (14) other anti-papist Orthodox Synods have condemned Papsim and its numberless errors in belief, while more than two hundred (200) Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers have written against the Latins and have overturned those dogmas which they hold in opposition to the Gospels."

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 261,676
Nanci Jo Frazer WINS in Court - a Case of Innoc... (Oct '13) 4 min Former Customer 24
C2180-401 Exam testing engine 5 min passokay123 1
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 16 min WasteWater 4,777
The REAL reason Oscar Pistorius was sent straig... 26 min Doctor REALITY 7
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 34 min Dave Nelson 230,003
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 47 min UidiotRaceMAkeWor... 750,699
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr dr Shrink 602,176
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 3 hr chevyguy 127
Do you enjoy seeing your sister nude / naked? (Sep '13) 10 hr MeHere 388

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE