Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 685462 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.

Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479273 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus says in the Bible these words are spirit and not literal, most early church fathers agree with me, but I will go with Jesus he trumps all that comes after him, those that come after Jesus agree with him and speak the truth or disagree with him and at the very least are in error.
Paul's spoken words were found to agree with scripture and accompanied with miracles he raised the dead in their presence.
Your RCC assertions contradict the scriptures that came before and are not accompanied by miracles only death and lies.
Are you that blind to see the difference???
"most early church fathers agree with me"

All early Church fathers and the Catholic Church agrees with you that Jesus said His words were Spirit. All of the early fathers and the Catholic Church says He meant that it requires supernatural spiritual faith to accept His teaching and reject carnal logic. None of the early fathers agreed with you that He was not speaking literally. Why do most protestants not even agree that Jesus is "spiritually" present in the Eucharist? Why do they say it's only symbolic? No where in the bible does it equate "spiritual" with "symbolic".

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#479274 Sep 30, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
GOD'S LOVE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON US BEING A PART OF AN EARTHLY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION...
OUR SALVATION
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON RITUALS, CEREMONIES, RELIGIOUS CALISTHENICS OR NAME OF DENOMINATION WE BELONG TO...
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
NOTE ..WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS...
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
WE WERE RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH OF JESUS.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
JESUS' BLOOD WAS SHED FOR OUR ATONEMENT.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
ORIGINALLY... SIN CAME UPON ALL MEN THROUGH THE SIN OF ADAM
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
DEATH,.... SEPARATION FROM GOD CAME TO ALL MEN THROUGH ADAMS TRANSGRESSION.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many be dead,
much more the grace of God, and
RECONCILIATION CAME THROUGH JESUS ..hE IS THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE
the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,
hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation,
but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH..
Rom_3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom_5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom_5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Tit_3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
-------
Tit 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and
pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that
they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.
These things are good and profitable unto men.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
THE LAWS OF CATHOLICISM.... ARE JUST AS WORTHLESS
TO THE GENTILES ...UNDER GRACE... AS IS THE LEVITICAL LAWS ...OF MOSES
When are you going to post some teachings by Jesus that confirms what "Paul" states?
Clay

Detroit, MI

#479275 Sep 30, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Clay
And,I'm saying this,seriously to try to make you understand .
If the woman was older ..a,devout Catholic ...Dr was,most likely afraid for the child due to what she had been taught ..heard ..who knows,
This happened years,ago..was she tactful..no.
Sounds like she was concerned for the child's afterlife ..And did EHAT she knew to do Pray ...for her soul .
If Church teaching changed after that 're LIMBO and baptized children ..as it has ..I'm not surprised she would feel as she did ..
Though I would never HAVE SAID such a thing out loud ..just prayed
Had I believed as,she did ..And at one one I DID
There really is no way to reconcile this incident. They most certainly took it the wrong way. regardless, it dug up some pain.
And yeah you're right, the woman may have believed their child was in limbo... this was the thought of many people back then. Why on Earth she would tell a grieving mother that is beyond me. But I'm not going to be able to be patch this up I see, with those two. So its best to drop it and next time i won't say anything due to the sensitive subject.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#479276 Sep 30, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth
Peace
Have you ever thought about the difference between the nation of Israel, and the Kingdom of David and Solomon?
Have you ever thought that the secular state of Israel today, is not the nostalgic religious people of God(that Christians look on in the Middle East today)?
Since the creation of the secular state of Israel, which IMHO you probably believe to be the nation of Israel, there has not been a move toward old religious ways....It is more of a wishful thinking on the part of a segment of Christianity that believes/ wants to believe the end is here....It might be a deception by Satan to lure people into all sorts of cults, diverting them from Jesus Christ. The end may not be for thousands, tens of thousands of years....
Live your life by following Jesus. Its really hard at times to do, with so much diversion from that Goal. Keep your eye on Jesus, listen to Him.
Peace
Yes,

Israel is,secular..however the,Jews,HAVE RETURNED ..as,prophesied,.

There,is,Messianic movement there

More ..there,are those FAITHFUL JEWS preparing for a,NEW TEMPLE ..
EDUCATING priests,making vestments,and instruments,of worship .
Red heifers being raised
Will there be one in our lifetime ..only God knows,..But educate faithfully preparing for worship and for Messiah..he faithful Jews who worship YAHWEH..Will not be forgotten by the Father.

The,desert is blooming.. grapes growing ..all prophesied ..

In Jesus time the government was,ROMAN .

Jerusalem will be,as,David's,kingdom only when Jesus,sits,on David's,throne

And we HAVE..no idea,when ..But unlike before 1948.''Israel is a nation ..with Jews returned from the Diaspora..as,prophesied .

It's right that they have a,HOME ..unlike those turned away in the war Ro be slaughtered ..no country to accept them ..

And,God used THIS,COUNTRY to help ..Thank God ..
Gods R Delusions

Orlando, FL

#479277 Sep 30, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. The Catholic Church has always taught and still teaches that Mary needed savior. Her saving came in a different way, at her conception. But she still needed God to save her first.
Let me ask you, why do you care what we believe? God is a not real according to you..
Ex-Catholic.

It's all myth, but at least allow us to get the myth straight.

Forgive me if I was wrong, but everything RCC I read says Mary was born with without original sin, remained sinless, and ascended bodily into Heaven (just like Jesus).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-con...

Can you show us anything to suggest that the RCC teaches that Mary needed saving.

Anything?
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479278 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts are getting lamer but it looks like fun let me try.
"If any RCC apologist would like to answer this challenge, then please tell me show me, the infallible Unanimous historical tradition of early Church Fathers on doctrinal content were it is over 70% agreement on the following Holy
Tradition dogmas, according to the RCC, on (1) Baptism,(2) Eucharist,(3) the sacraments or "ordinances" in general,(4) Church government,(5) church services or how to conduct Liturgy,(6) salvation,(7) predestination and free will,(8) any number of moral issues: divorce, re-marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. Since there is great disagreement among "official" Protestant statements of faith, one cannot possibly know what is the official "Protestant position" (or from Holy Scripture the infallible "doctrinal content") on any of these issues."
But let me give you some help if it was unanimous there never would of been the need for Councils that never were unanimous in the end either.
Excuse my bluntness but you will be peeing in the wind if you try.
All dogmas are over 70%. lol.

From your pet "expert":

William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his 1995 book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called "baptismal regeneration" :

"The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (Webster, page 95-96)

ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#479279 Sep 30, 2013
Gods R Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>
Ex-Catholic.
It's all myth, but at least allow us to get the myth straight.
Forgive me if I was wrong, but everything RCC I read says Mary was born with without original sin, remained sinless, and ascended bodily into Heaven (just like Jesus).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-con...
Can you show us anything to suggest that the RCC teaches that Mary needed saving.
Anything?
From the link you provided:

Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-con...
Gods R Delusions

Orlando, FL

#479280 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
These sites take Webster's arguments point by point and completely dismantles every thing he presents. I'd think someone with your academic credentials, if he were not patently biased, would take the time to actually read them and attempt a response of some sort. In spite of all your advanced degrees, it seems to me you're nothing more than a shill for amatuer historians like Wlliam Webster.
You are writing in a delusional manner - self-delusion.

Your statement -- "They still teach 'no salvation' outside the Church" -- is simply not true.

There either is salvation, or there is not salvation "outside the church."

The term "no salvation outside the church" was taught and understood for centuries, even before it was codified by Papal Bull in the early 1300s.

Previous Catechisms were clear on the matter.

The Gospels are clear on the matter (ask your Baptist buddies).

The RCC changed its teaching 180 degrees. So what? It did what was right and just. Like formally denouncing slavery.

You shouldn't allow delusional dogma get in the way of righteousness.
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479281 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
For Ant more from your Hero
William Webster
Scripture has authority, as both Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants will agree, because it is the Word of God. But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says it is. Scripture’s authority is derived from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man—it has an authority independent of the Church. In this chapter we want to examine the nature of that authority and the claim that Scripture is inspired by God and thereby trustworthy.
The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is because the Scriptures themselves make that claim. This is significant because if they did not claim divine inspiration for themselves then we would have no right to claim it for them. However, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes:‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God.1
The fullest statement on the divine inspiration of Scripture, however, is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:15-17):
From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13).
cont
You choose to flood the board with spam. Those who prefer the more scholarly approach will actually post a link and allow the readers to see the issue debated. Never took a debate class with all those advanced degrees did you?
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#479282 Sep 30, 2013
Gods R Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>
Ex-Catholic.
Then you should already know the answer.

;)
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#479283 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement;
"never once do the use what you call tradition."
Hanukkah isn't in your KJV(it IS in the Catholic and Orthodox bibles), yet Jesus observed it. If it's not in your bible, why would He have observed this "tradition"?
"There are some instances of Sacred Tradition in the Bible that are interesting. For instance, in Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:
"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said,`It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.
Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following:
"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament.
Here are a few more:
Matthew 2:23:And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."(This "he shall be called a Nazarene" prophecy is not in written scripture anywhere).
Matthew 23:2:"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;"(Moses' seat is not mentioned anywhere in written scripture).

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (This is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which Luther threw out of his bible in the 16th century. This story cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible. It is in the Catholic Bible, and has been since the 4th century.)
http://www.catholicbible101.com/sacredtraditi...
Here are a few more of the Apostolic example sources of Catholic Tradition that is firmly rooted in the Apostles, handed down to them by Jesus Christ HIMSELF, and taught in the Early Churches. It is specifically this "commissioning of the Apostles", who by their (oral preaching) handed on, what they received from the "lips of Christ", living with HIM, from what He did and what they had learned, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit in HIS Church. The commission was fulfilled by the Apostles and to those apostolic men (The Early Church Fathers) who under the inspiration of the "same Holy Spirit, committed the message of Salvation and moral teaching--committing that (same message) IN WRITING in 382,393, and 397 AD with the Canon of Scripture. Catholic Tradition from the Oral teachings of the Apostles in the Early Churches were" The Trinity, Apostles Creed, Immaculate Conception, Nicene Creed, Sign of the Cross, Daily Mass, The Seven Sacraments, Confession and absolution, just to name a few. Catholic Tradition stands WITH Sacred Scripture in forming the one single deposit of the Faith. For Catholics, Sacred Tradition NOT in opposition to Scripture : they compliment and confirm one another. This is precisely why Catholics do not believe in Sola Ecclesia (Sola Scriptura, because NOWHERE in the bible does the bible teach this false teaching. We believe in Sola verbum Dei (the Word of God alone) This word comes from Jesus and the Apostles through BOTH the written word and the oral traditions handed down by the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15) which has been entrusted to the Church that Jesus builds upon the rock of Peter (Matthew 16:13-21,(1Tim 3:15. The ineffable wisdom of God is MADE KNOWN through HIS Church (Eph 3:9-10)
Clay

Detroit, MI

#479284 Sep 30, 2013
Gods R Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>
Ex-Catholic.
It's all myth, but at least allow us to get the myth straight.
Forgive me if I was wrong, but everything RCC I read says Mary was born with without original sin, remained sinless, and ascended bodily into Heaven (just like Jesus).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-con...
Can you show us anything to suggest that the RCC teaches that Mary needed saving.
Anything?
Luke 1: 47 Mary calls God her savior. The Church won't teach it any other way. Because of her role, her saving was all the more important. It just came in a different way than the rest of us, given her unique sole in Gods plan.
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#479285 Sep 30, 2013
September 27, 2013
POPE FRANCIS SAID WHAT?! ACTUALLY, NO, HE DIDN'T
By Selwyn Duke

That NBC had doctored a 911 call for the purposes of making George Zimmerman look like a bigot was a shocking revelation. Yet cut-and-paste propaganda is a common media tactic, and I'm not sure anyone is victimized by it more than Pope Francis.

You've probably read the headlines. "Pope Francis urges global leaders to end 'tyranny' of money," "Pope Francis's stunning blow to conservatives,"

***"Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven," "Pope Says Church Is 'Obsessed' With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control"; rinse, wash and repeat. Yet these headlines range from delusion to, possibly, deception. By and large, he said, she said is not what the pope said.

***Let's start with the recent big news, the Jesuit magazine interview with Pope Francis called that "stunning blow to conservatives." The stunned (and stunted) journalist who wrote that line, the Guardian's Andrew Brown, used a Francis "quotation" prevalent throughout the media.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/pope_f...
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#479286 Sep 30, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
Anthony this is the most important part debunks your earlier post
To argue, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that Scripture is profitable but not sufficient as a rule of faith is to twist its meaning in order to defend a man-made tradition. This is not a new phenomenon. The Pharisees, according to Jesus, misinterpreted Scripture in order to adhere to their tradition and he condemned them for it (Matt. 15:1-9). But in both cases the Bible’s clear statement remains—Scripture is sufficient ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work’.
The fact that Paul does not use the precise word ‘sufficient’ in the text just quoted in no way invalidates our statement. The sufficiency of Scripture, and therefore ‘sola scriptura’, is implicit in what he says and in the rest of biblical testimony.
The truth contained in the word ‘trinity’ stands upon exactly the same basis. The word itself is not found in Scripture. But it is a convenient term for summing up the general teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the nature of God. The teaching for which the word stands is in Scripture and therefore the use of the term is warranted. In like manner the terms ‘sufficiency’ or ‘sola scriptura’ sum up the overall teaching of Scripture about itself. Specific scriptural descriptions of the Word of God, which speak of its nature and function, lead us inescapably to this conclusion. The following are some of the words which tell us how God would have us regard his Word:
pure—perfect—sure—truth—eterna l—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17).
It is impossible to find a more convincing argument for the sufficiency of Scripture than these descriptions. And no such language is ever used about tradition in the Scriptures. Nowhere does it receive such commendation. We are told in explicit terms that Scripture is inspired, but never is that said of tradition. On the contrary, when the New Testament speaks of tradition it does so in words of warning (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18; Gal. 1:14). When we look at the overall teaching of Scripture about itself and tradition, it is surely clear that it teaches that Scripture is sufficient.
"The fact that Paul does not use the precise word ‘sufficient’ in the text just quoted in no way invalidates our statement. The sufficiency of Scripture, and therefore ‘sola scriptura’, is implicit in what he says and in the rest of biblical testimony."

That's what this debate is about.

The links I provided (and many more out there) demolish Webster.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479287 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
These sites take Webster's arguments point by point and completely dismantles every thing he presents. I'd think someone with your academic credentials, if he were not patently biased, would take the time to actually read them and attempt a response of some sort. In spite of all your advanced degrees, it seems to me you're nothing more than a shill for amatuer historians like Wlliam Webster.
I post from many vetted sources, regardless of what you say they stand the test that matters, they pass the biblical test.

The fact that you post another character assassination is the reason I don't address your links, where to begin with them so much nonsense.

But that is your tactic miss direction, the facts post in this ignored by you, and you instead use distractions and change the subjects that were originally being addressed. YOU are so disingenuous, and dishonest to the subject matter at hand.

Anyone like yourself who believes that history proves the RCC claims such as unbroken line of Popes has drank the koolaid and then some.

Your credibility as RC with history is like a fox explaining how he has such great relations and friendships with the chickens.

Again the RCC redefines words to suit their needs they never let chapter and writings of Ancient texts to define the words they use in the writings.

The RCC yourself included, before ever getting to ancient texts have all been brain washed conditioned from Sunday School to conformation to believe the meaning you use for a word toady is the same as ancient word translated in to English. You pour a meaning into a word from 1000+ years out to with no regard to the context of the word in its original language and time.

BTW I do not have advance degrees, I am simply blessed with a good education, a good job, and blessed with the ability to travel since the late 80's all over the world. It is all God and I thank him.

It is simply the Gospel and that is why someone with Pride like the RCC can except it. The Word even predicts the wise won't handle it.

Jesus says its Finished and the RCC says it isn't, its not rocket science it is a matter of submission and bowing ones knee to Lord Jesus and saying NO to Man made institutions and fabricated traditions.

Its not complicated, God's will be done not your fake Popes or your fake institutions.

If you ever receive the Spirit of Truth you will know what I am writing about.

God Bless
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#479288 Sep 30, 2013
Now, it's not surprising Brown didn't provide a link to the actual interview. Because not only is his cut-and-paste job missing an ellipsis (between "and" and "all the time"), it's an elliptical formulation that OMITS 58 words -- and 58 miles of meaning.

After saying he hadn't talked about abortion, marriage and contraception much, here's what the pope actually stated:

"THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH, FOR THAT MATTER, IS CLEAR AND I AM A SON OF THE CHURCH, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time." The media didn't omit the italicized words merely for brevity's sake. When Francis said that the teaching is "clear" and he's a "son of the church," he is reaffirming doctrine and his fidelity to it. He's saying that the teachings in question are definitive, set in stone, and that he is loyal to mother Church as any good "son" is to his mother.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/pope_f...

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#479289 Sep 30, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth
Peace
I very much believe this....
The question is, "Who are Israel?"
If we are grafted onto Israel as Christians, and much of the Jews have been removed as deadwood and burned, then as grafted branches, we too are in the wilderness and find REST in Jesus....
What we need to do is remain watchful and become as Jesus. Then we will not be removed and burned as deadwood or unproductive branches.
Keep your mind and heart on Jesus!
Peace
I could not agree more ..:)
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#479290 Sep 30, 2013
But some "interpretations" of the pope's words are, damnably, much farther afield. Consider the Independent's headline: Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven." Not surprisingly, this paper also suddenly forgot how to use the hyperlink feature in its reportage (what the pope actually wrote).

But Francis never said "You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven."

In fact, he never used the word "Heaven" in what was a 2688-word letter even once.(ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!)

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/pope_f...
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479291 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
You choose to flood the board with spam. Those who prefer the more scholarly approach will actually post a link and allow the readers to see the issue debated. Never took a debate class with all those advanced degrees did you?
Yes your right I choose to post a 3000 word article in 2-3 or three posts in response to an unsubstantiated claim from a RCC zealot.

If you think that's a Flood or spam well you are just plain dumb.
Your way which you call scholarly PUFF PUFF goes your chest is the way of the coward who can't refute the evidence and then tries to play all superior.

All I get is a big prideful post like the one above about how superior you are.

BUT AGAIN IT DOES NOT GO UNNOTICED by those who I am posting to through the likes of you that you can not make a cognitive logical historical biblical defense to your assertions.

NOPE once again the best you mount in a defense is a character assassination .

Pathetic to say the least
ReginaM

Bloomfield, NJ

#479292 Sep 30, 2013
More truth in spite of bearers of false witness who are spreading the lie that the Pope is "making changes":

As for doctrine, the Church isn't some journalist with hormone-imbalance-induced mood swings. Defined doctrine (dogma) cannot change, and new doctrines won't be forged with reporters. What a pope says in an interview doesn't change doctrine any more than what a president says in an interview changes American law.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/pope_f...

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 16 min Alt right lies ne... 24,639
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Aerobatty 985,584
News Gov. Abbott suggests 'bathroom bill' is likely ... 3 hr e williams 3
Sarah George 5 hr Rememberboys 1
News GOP not interested in health care for us 5 hr discocrisco 1
OVERWHELMED...by God's blessings 7 hr Doctor REALITY 12
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Jake999 619,749
David Duke: "We're going to take our country ba... 7 hr Doctor REALITY 32
More from around the web