Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 650545 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

truth

The Vines, Australia

#478673 Sep 26, 2013
be bless who is poor

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#478674 Sep 26, 2013
Clay!!!!

Show me where they say the very definition of Saviour is wrong:
soter: a deliverer, i.e. God or Christ:--saviour.

Do you know what "or" means??????!!!!
truth

The Vines, Australia

#478675 Sep 26, 2013
right is right

roses is old 3.5 millions years
rosary
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478676 Sep 26, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that about the flowers,
And THey change their own teachings all the TIME...with New dogma..encyclical,..bowing to science on evolution ..That one shocked me ..
Thanks for that,

What is ever present to me in this thread is the average RC here is not willing to test their faith, they are only here to bully their beliefs on those who disagree.

So I post through them from time to time here in the past years to show those who are seeking some other resources they may not know of.

It is 325 AD for the past 300 years the church in the Roman empire has been persecuted, Bishops, Elders have been chosen and have been running their local congregations independently from any kind of central command.

ONE POPE of popes One Elder of elders never existed. Not Until late 7th 8th century in the Latin church did this rear its ugly head, never existed in the Greek Church and Rome to her shame sacked massacred Greek Christians in the 11th century at Constantinople weakening her to the point the Muslims could take her.

NO telex no mail service, let alone telephones or any kind of printing press and some how the RCC wants us to believe while the Church was underground and for most part of the first 300 years of christian history wants us to believe that the Pope of Rome some how had central command over all the church. It is a insane concept in light of Historical fact but most importantly Biblical fact.

It would be laughable if not so sad.

They swallow this deception out and out hook line and sinker.
truth

The Vines, Australia

#478677 Sep 26, 2013
then you cozy problem there don't you
i don't wanted cozy problem
because you don't wanted understood
my mind is not yours

its exist square

sense of fingers
in loving universal power exist many universum
yep

you liked ruin my mind and my dreams

my son liked me bring in school
i don't liked go to school
no way

i liked find truthful person how i will build my tiny power
as well can be big universal power too..

you liked that for money and grab power as distraction
not me

you not tell me what is in sahara desert
as well in Oceania

now
you are trouble you not looking as me
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478678 Sep 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd as it seems, you forgot to include how he was "Christian" which makes him nonsecular and bias toward Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf
"Simon's father Moses Greenleaf married Lydia Parsons, daughter of Rev. Jonathan Parsons of Newburyport."
"It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed."
"In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion,"
http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm
Anyone can come up with one relevant source to uphold their position. One instance does not make it true.
I've listed multiple times on where the resurrection is just a made up story. Yet you don't believe those.
Yes CiB - Self is the answer you should be accepting, as you already utilize it in every aspect of your belief anyhow.
Why do you think certain fallible men were accurate in trying to define an infallible being?
Who you really are in this thread has not gone noticed.

NAS leader.

He became a Christian after the fact.

From your link first two lines


Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

His Bias was not Christian in the least

Nice try at dis information but then that is what a good NAS leader does you can't help it its in your nature.
truth

The Vines, Australia

#478679 Sep 26, 2013
Why you laying?
Its exist!
Visible and not visible power trough history time and space.
Nobody liked liars!
no
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478680 Sep 26, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
St. Jerome accepted the judgement of the Church.
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.(Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).
The Orthodox and ancient Churches accepted them as well. The were in the Vulgate. That's proof that they were there before Trent. And the reason for declaring the official canon at Trent was because the heretics were removing them.
Jesus, the apostles and Church fathers all referencing the deuterocanon.
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.htm...
Jerome accepted the decisions of the day regarding what was canonized scripture this is true.

He never accepted the extra books as being canonized scripture as they were not canonized in his day, he was never required to accept them as scripture because they were not. that happened some hundreds of years after his death. He did not believe they should be bound in the same book with scripture so they would not be confused with scripture.

Again please stop with the Straw men, I have never said they were not there, present before TRENT just never considered scripture to be used to formulate doctrine dogma.

Until Trent for the RCC only then they were made Scripture, equal in weight to the Book of Exodus, equal to the book of Romans.

NOT in the slightest have these books been unanimously considered scripture by the Apostles or early Church fathers or the vast majority of Christendom. In fact the early church never used them as scripture. This only happened at Trent when Rome was losing power, and promoting false dogmas, like indulgences and robbing the flock to build earthly monuments castles for her emperor.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#478681 Sep 26, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that,
What is ever present to me in this thread is the average RC here is not willing to test their faith, they are only here to bully their beliefs on those who disagree.
So I post through them from time to time here in the past years to show those who are seeking some other resources they may not know of.
It is 325 AD for the past 300 years the church in the Roman empire has been persecuted, Bishops, Elders have been chosen and have been running their local congregations independently from any kind of central command.
ONE POPE of popes One Elder of elders never existed. Not Until late 7th 8th century in the Latin church did this rear its ugly head, never existed in the Greek Church and Rome to her shame sacked massacred Greek Christians in the 11th century at Constantinople weakening her to the point the Muslims could take her.
NO telex no mail service, let alone telephones or any kind of printing press and some how the RCC wants us to believe while the Church was underground and for most part of the first 300 years of christian history wants us to believe that the Pope of Rome some how had central command over all the church. It is a insane concept in light of Historical fact but most importantly Biblical fact.
It would be laughable if not so sad.
They swallow this deception out and out hook line and sinker.
Undeniable truth!!!!
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478682 Sep 26, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
No Catholic has ever put you down for your belief in the bible, we just don't think it's a good idea trying to interpret it by yourself.
First nobody said in Protestant Evangelical circles to do it by yourself.

That again is your Straw man based in your made up imaginary world that lacks reason fairness or honesty.

So this is how your illogical statement reads

You in of yourself can't interpret scripture this is bad, but you can in of yourself read the RCC interpretations that have changed over the millennium and by yourself understand it and accept it.

You can't read the plain teachings of scripture on your own but you can read on your own the literally millions of pages of interpretations produced by RCC for the last 1000 years and interpret them and understand on your own, and if you can't not to worry some uneducated Priest who could not make in the real world and got D's in high school will get you straightened out.

YOU ARE INSANE in how you reason.

Where does it end do I need an interpreter for the interpreter or again another one for the a last one, your reasoning is FALSE and illogical.

I have because of today's accumlated knowledge, having been educated in the Canadian educational system ranked consistently high in quality top 10 for my life time a 100 times + better education than then the Bishops of Rome did even 500 years ago let alone 1000 years ago.

I am versed in Greek and Hebrew
I speak English Portuguese French.
I have by far a higher level of Math,Sciences,and languages skills and knowledge then those in your sect whose interpretations you so blindly accept with out proper checks and testing.

I have more Ancient texts at my disposal of the Bible and Church fathers than any Pope of the past and equal to any one alive today.

There is nothing I don't have access to that a RC pope has access to and I don't bring the bias.

Yet some how I am not qualified and your RC Popes are LOL.

But what is most important I unlike the Popes of years gone by filled with the Spirit of darkness, who waged war on the Saints murdered massacred literally 10s of millions of fellow human beings am filled with the Great Counselor the Spirit of God.

Who was promised to me by Jesus the Son of God no less who Jesus said he would send to me to lead me into all truth and teach me all the things he taught when he ascended on high.

I unlike your Popes yet like Peter the Apostle would never let men bow before me and kiss my ring finger like Roman subjects did to their Caesars who they worshiped. Yet those you wish me to let interpret scripture are Idol worshipers and have assumed the role of Ancient Cesar. Again laughable if so many souls eternal destiny's did not hang in the balance.

That trumps your illogical man made popes and sects interpretations in a nano second.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#478683 Sep 26, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok have your opinion I respect that, I think his show at times is quite interesting, he chooses to be quite sensational at times and IMO is not fair and balance, he does not need to be its his show but I don't buy his tonic for a second.
In the end he is inconsequential for me he promotes a sect that IMO is not biblical erroneous and leads human beings away from Jesus to Idolatry and a false Gospel.
That in of itself is reason enough to be very cautious of the man.
He is prone to fits of rage on air and lacks the ability to keep himself under control.
Sunday mornings on your american CNN is GPS with Zarkari he is very balanced and factual.
Makes the Factor child's play.


Lol ok ..he's,a,showman

I like to watch..don't always,agree ..And he doesn't really promote,CATHOLIC Church that I've seen

He has,a,real problem with secularists ..esp around,Christmas ..

I only watch when things,happen that are,of interest ..to me ..

But let me,say I get more actual info than on our networks,which are horribly biased and,secular ..

Other than O'Reilly ..I agree,EITH your posts..very enlightening
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478684 Sep 26, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
No Rose you dont understand. You are being defensive, hostile and sarcarstic and have refused to listen or look at links or explanations. You were quick to eat up the rubbish that was posted by the Brazilian and others as absolute truth though without further investigation. Your brethen often state clearly Catholics are not Christians. If you think some pass then good for you.
The church does not teach you have to believe that we evolved from some matter. It merely leaves it open. The Church views Genesis as not necessarily written for literal interpretation. Do you have to believe the earth was literally created in 6 days as we know them? Protestant are often quick throw Galileo in the face of Catholics. Galileo was correct in some of his assertions and incorrect in others. If he had stayed out of the realm of theology his troubles would not have occured. The church was open and Galileo under house arrest continued in his work. Protestant reformers railed against him. He also had many enemies as scientists do with their colleagues. Insisting the bible is wrong is not the right way to approach it. In his last years Galileo paraphrased it is not the bible is wrong it is mans interpretation of it. The church does not make infallible claims on science. There are certain things we simply do not know. The church merely says one cannot deny that God created all and the exact process how that took place we dont know.
If you think the Jews all believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis you would be wrong. Clarence Darrow tore Protestants to pieces who demanded it be a literal 6 day creation. G.K. Chesterton a Catholic intellectual who debated arguably some of the greatest minds known including Albert Einstein Shredded Clarence Darrow. G.K. CHesterton was a convert to the Church and because he was a force to be recknoned with he went from being hailed by the secular community to being feared, ignored and not talked about. They were afraid to engage him openly.
You are free to believe in 6 day creation or that Adam was created instantly. Leaving it open doesnt invalidate God nor the scripture. Scripture is the Word of God. It is the church who decided which books were authentic and which were not by the providence of God. There were many many books and mansucripts that were spurrious. Simon Magus? The Jews dont accept any NT books as the word of God you do know that right? The Jews were not scripture alone.
Christ said the Pharisees sit in the Chair of Moses. That is Christ acknowledging Holy Tradition. Satan contended for Moses bones that was Holy Tradition. Janus and Jambre the magicians in Pahros court was Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition was taught. The Jews spoke the bible and learned by hearing. The ups and downs of the voices and exagerrations were emphasized.
Paul asks, How can they learn if they do not hear? And How can they learn if someone is not sent. The Ethiopian Eunuch asks, "How can I know lest some man tells me?" No one is condemning you for believing scripture, but we do not agree with your interpretations. Christ founded a Church. He sent them. They picked taught and appointed others. Paul says Remember he truths you have learned and remember from whom you have learned it. Paul says to hold fast to the Traditions you have learned by mouth (orally) or in letters we have written.
Peter says that the unlearned and unstable wrest the word unto their destruction.
Jesus refers to Adam and Eve and the Genesis account as historical in the NT and Adam and Eve as having lived and the takes the account as literal. So did all Jews of Jesus's day.

So much for allowing Rome to interpret for me that can't even agree with Jesus of Nazareth the Christ son of God

You sure wrote a lot of blah blah trying defend the indefensible RC blah blah there. Give your head a shake.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#478685 Sep 27, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, Dan, he most certainly never claimed any such thing! He was so proud of being Orthodox, he would never claim to be Catholic.
Orthodox Catholic is the proper name of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. About that he was right. But the rest, no, absolutely not. You're mistaken and sera jumped right on it gobbling up the error, as usual. Now she's calling us liars because of it. This is not good, Dan. Please don't speculate. These people are not rational and are out for blood.
On a different note, how are you feeling these days?
I fine thank you,went through a 4th operation going through the same incision.Getting too old for that,but than again our bodies will do what they will in spite of how we think.

I apologize for the JOHN NJ misunderstanding.He would argue with me and did declare that he was as much an Orthodox as he was basically a Catholic. Catholics are universal in theology and practice,John NJ did not adhere to the Roman Catholic church,but he did believe in the universality of Catholics that held a tradition since the first century AD. John strongly believed that his church was the true Catholic church from the Apostles,as said in the Nicene Creed.

Regina,there seems to be more of a problem between Roman Catholics,Orthodox,and Anglicans when it pertains to the word Catholic. The word Catholic is being high jinked by political bias,whether it comes from the RCC,or the Orthodox,and or the Anglicans.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#478686 Sep 27, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>I fine thank you,went through a 4th operation going through the same incision.Getting too old for that,but than again our bodies will do what they will in spite of how we think.
I apologize for the JOHN NJ misunderstanding.He would argue with me and did declare that he was as much an Orthodox as he was basically a Catholic. Catholics are universal in theology and practice,John NJ did not adhere to the Roman Catholic church,but he did believe in the universality of Catholics that held a tradition since the first century AD. John strongly believed that his church was the true Catholic church from the Apostles,as said in the Nicene Creed.
Regina,there seems to be more of a problem between Roman Catholics,Orthodox,and Anglicans when it pertains to the word Catholic. The word Catholic is being high jinked by political bias,whether it comes from the RCC,or the Orthodox,and or the Anglicans.
stay with it friend we will both make it through physically and spiritually
Pad

Rockford, IL

#478687 Sep 27, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
My all-time favorite was mischbrot which I ate everyday while in Germany, although brotchen was a very close second. There was a bakery in the town next to me here in Minnesota that was owned by a German immigrant who made both exactly as it is in Germany and when he passed away a few years ago they had to close it down. Last week I heard it's going to be re-opened with all the same recipes he used. Who knows if they'll be able to pull it off, but I sure hope so.
Spent a year in England,but never to European nations across the Channel.Stopped in Germany,and Paris via Plane,for an hour or so,but what can you see from an airport? Many German bakeries in New Jersey,don't recall the German names Mischbrot and brotchen,as they of course would not use them in an English speaking setting. German,Hungarian and Jewish bakeries are the best!
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478688 Sep 27, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>I fine thank you,went through a 4th operation going through the same incision.Getting too old for that,but than again our bodies will do what they will in spite of how we think.
I apologize for the JOHN NJ misunderstanding.He would argue with me and did declare that he was as much an Orthodox as he was basically a Catholic. Catholics are universal in theology and practice,John NJ did not adhere to the Roman Catholic church,but he did believe in the universality of Catholics that held a tradition since the first century AD. John strongly believed that his church was the true Catholic church from the Apostles,as said in the Nicene Creed.
Regina,there seems to be more of a problem between Roman Catholics,Orthodox,and Anglicans when it pertains to the word Catholic. The word Catholic is being high jinked by political bias,whether it comes from the RCC,or the Orthodox,and or the Anglicans.
Hi Pad

What has happened to John NJ, all writing in past tense??

Had many interactions on this thread with him in the years past I am assume some tragedy has happened.

Thanks in advance

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#478689 Sep 27, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Pad
What has happened to John NJ, all writing in past tense??
Had many interactions on this thread with him in the years past I am assume some tragedy has happened.
Thanks in advance
John died almost two years ago.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#478690 Sep 27, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>John died almost two years ago.
Thanks for the info.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#478691 Sep 27, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>stay with it friend we will both make it through physically and spiritually
You are still up,I have to hit the sack,worked at the hospital,and am really tired. By the way, Concerned in Brazil is really quite remarkable,he is what he says he is when it comes to studying and being a debater.He is very skilled at what he does.I do not have the time to pour through countless numbers of documents,historical and recent past and present.

I am not a debater,and I believe everyone has their course in life as to what they do,with preparation and so on.The Roman Catholics believe that just because some saint or their church fathers made a statement of faith,than that's it,that settles it,there is no other authority.

Often I have watched the Journey Home, hosted by Marcus Grodi,former Lutheran(Presbyterian) pastor.He always wants the converts to tell how their upbringing either ignored Catholicism or hated it.Every one who gets on there who was a former Baptist,even Presbyterian,and or an Evangelical,gives respect to the fact that in those disciplines they found Christ,BUT they never knew the "Fulness of the Church". All of the converts tell of how they realized that each discipline was not based on Authority,but that authority was found later in Roman Catholicism.

Their conversion to Catholicism is never easy,but each being different had to grapple with the usual doctrines evangelicals and prots have difficulty with(Marian,statues,papacy,pra ying to saints,history,and even misconceptions concerning the Inquisition and the years that the RCC ruled over Europe).Nevertheless,the converts are now much happier since they had to learn to appreciate the Eucharist and what ever else they did not understand as prots concerning Catholic doctrine.

Oh I must include as well the big fallacy of (Sola Scriptura).There is no place in the Bible that tells us we must only use that Book as our only source of affirmation to the truth of Christianity.Tradition must be included per the long line of succession through the Papacy.All of it!

The question is never asked,and will not be approached.

Since when does the Bible have to declare itself sola scriptura to satisfy anyone's belief? Since when does Jesus have to call Himself God in order to prove that He is in fact God?How is it that we should believe every man's account concerning historical Christianity? The facts to what history has documented through the witnesses of those times,and what is put in the volumes of reference materials proves much about all existing churches,that includes the RCC,Orthodoxy,and the Reformation churches.

The testimony of what men and women believed concerning Jesus Christ has been shared throughout history,from that first century of the Apostles until now.The Dark times of UNBELIEF,and the radiant times of Revival and a turning to God whether it be Catholic,Orthodox or Reformer churches,and their offspring as it were. The greatest debate and battle has been over the BOOK itself,and we all survived it,not only that but we are still being converted by its sound truths and words of wisdom,redemption and the power of the Holy Spirit.Continued:
Pad

Rockford, IL

#478692 Sep 27, 2013
Herme:Continued..........

Why are we even debating that the Bible is or is not sola scriptura? That in and of itself is an insult to the Holy Word of God.Either the Word of God is true or it is not.Either is can stand the test of human reasoning or it does not? We really as believers have no right to place the Word of God on levels of human reasoning.For it was given to Man,Man did not give the Word as a testament of his or her own beliefs.

The Apostles heard the Word of our Lord from His own lips.He did the miracles before their very eyes,and He reasoned with them from the Torah,Tanack,and the Prophets.Jesus did not just speak on His own accord,but He inspired by the very Covenant of His Father shared of the Kingdom with the Apostles,other Disciples.

All that we see Jesus and the Apostles do in the New Covenant was from the inspiration and Power of the Father from the Scriptures. No matter how long it took (the early church) to receive the New Testament, all that Jesus taught was confirmed by the Apostles,and written for the benefit of the whole church.Now if every word of Jesus was recorded it would fill a whole library,and even more.But ONE solitary B o o k is given,not to worship it,but to read it and gain its content for our lives.

Who has yet, to prove the greatest life as a believer without the Scriptures? No matter who we read about in the Christian persuasion,the Word was referred to,and used as a conviction of both experience and truth concerning God the Father and His glorious Son Jesus Christ,through the Power of the Precious Holy Spirit.No Book written by any person can match the Bible when it comes to presenting what God wanted to give to His Sheep.

When people say my church believes this,or so and so preached and taught this or that,and here is historical data that proves so and so said this or that to confirm a certain belief,all is hearsay,and can be considered second hand information.But when we go to the Word,we see what those individuals in the Word expounded on what they were inspired by:The Holy Spirit. It is those things that we can rely on.

This great man or woman who said that they heard from God,must be tested with the Word.If you do not believe that there is a finality in the Inspired Word of God,than what can you base the many things that are said and given to us by so many voices? It is not the 42,000 sects that may represent Christianity,it is the many voices of preachings,teachings and those who claim authority we must test by the WRITTEN WORD.Jesus said to the Devil every time He faced a new temptation,"It is Written." Where was it written? What Book is Jesus referring to when He confronts the Devil?

Is He quoting the Rabbis of the Talmud or the Kabbala? No He was referring to the Torah,the Tanack,and the Prophets.

Jesus used the Word to teach and to expound and to refute the Devil,how are we not expected even more so to not rely on the Authority,and Holy Inspiration of the very Book we all claim is ours in faith?

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) 1 min Hangman 971,867
why have black people got no history? (Apr '11) 3 min UnderstandPeople 16
Poll White Men, Would You Have A BABY by a Black Woman (Apr '10) 13 min Noname 509
Why are white people so insecure ? (Feb '10) 45 min UnderstandPeople 210
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 54 min andet1987 2,346
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr new ideas 106,077
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Aura Mytha 56,148
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr Rider on the Storm 182,965
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 8 hr ChristineM 445,930
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 18 hr kobechi3 71
More from around the web