Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 670327 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

Minneapolis, MN

#479347 Sep 30, 2013
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
Mary was a human being, correct? This requires a yes or no answer.
<quoted text>
Two more things for you AnthonyMN.....
1. I Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam ALL DIE, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
2. How many people did Mary appear to in her flesh after her death?
3. Luke 7:28, "I tell you, among those born of women NONE is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." This is Jesus speaking. Why did Jesus say there is NONE among those born of women greater than John? Did Jesus ever meet his mother Mary? Of course. We know He did. If Mary was without sin why would Jesus describe John, and not Mary, as none greater born of women? By the words of Jesus He describes John the Baptist as greater than His own mother.
4. Psalm 14:3, "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one."
Romans 3:10-11, 10 "as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Romans 3:23, "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard."
This verse could be written as follows to fit your Roman Catholic theology. "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of Jesus glorious standard."
You do believe Jesus is God.....right?
1. True
2. None that I know of. We don't teach that she did.
3. "Yet the one who is least in the kingdom is greater than he". True, like possibly the lowly handmaid of The Lord.
4. None? Even babies and the mentally handicapped?

Yes, I believe Jesus is God.

Do they teach you to call people stupid in your deacon school?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#479348 Sep 30, 2013
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Bible tells us of an "all the more important" salvation? Where might I find the Biblical verse that describes the salvation of Mary as an "all the more important" method? By the way, what is an
"all the more important" method of salvation and how does it differ from the salvation of any other human being?
<quoted text>
Cly, thank you once again for sharing your ignorance. It is obvious you have never cracked a Bible. Keep believing Rome instead of the word of God and let me know what the Bible has to say about such a person.
You said, quote, "God needed to procreate with a female in order to manifest Himself as a human being. Do you need a Bible verse where it says that?" End quote.
God did not need a female. He chose to USE a female. He chose to be made in our likeness minus sin.
You said, quote, "God can not mix His DNA With sin in order to create the perfect manifestation of Himself. Sin and God are separate. Do you demand a Bible verse for that too?" End quote.
God did not mix His blood with the blood of Mary. Not at all. The DNA of Jesus is Divine. The only Divine DNA from the Holy Spirit. You tell us Mary's mother was without sin therefore Mary was without sin. You are so stupid it is beyond belief.
You said, quote, "Maybe you ought to provide the list that Jesus Christ said we are to put in the Bible in order to base all His teachings on." End quote.
The Bible tells us.....
II Timothy 3:1617, 16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
<quoted text>
You said, quote, "From whom did Jesus receive His human nature?" End quote.
Try reading before you open your mouth and insert both feet...
Colossians 1:15-17, 15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
So please tell us.....who created the human form of Jesus? Mary? First,we human beings do not and have not ever created anything. Your parents did not create you because if they did they are God. Parents perpetuate life. They do not create life. Understand. Second, there is only ONE CREATOR. This Creator created two human beings in the beginning and all of human kind are their descendants.
Why did the archangel Gabriel relay the message from God that she would conceive Jesus in her womb if she didn't contribute anything? God can do anything so why didn't Jesus just appear out if thin air? I mean, that would have astounded people as much as the virgin birth.
marge

Leesburg, GA

#479349 Sep 30, 2013
How come Matthew Mark Luke John all say the same thing and agree with each other, but their so-called first disciples don't all agree and didn't all write the same things?
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#479350 Sep 30, 2013
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Bible tells us of an "all the more important" salvation? Where might I find the Biblical verse that describes the salvation of Mary as an "all the more important" method? By the way, what is an
"all the more important" method of salvation and how does it differ from the salvation of any other human being?
<quoted text>
Cly, thank you once again for sharing your ignorance. It is obvious you have never cracked a Bible. Keep believing Rome instead of the word of God and let me know what the Bible has to say about such a person.
You said, quote, "God needed to procreate with a female in order to manifest Himself as a human being. Do you need a Bible verse where it says that?" End quote.
God did not need a female. He chose to USE a female. He chose to be made in our likeness minus sin.
You said, quote, "God can not mix His DNA With sin in order to create the perfect manifestation of Himself. Sin and God are separate. Do you demand a Bible verse for that too?" End quote.
God did not mix His blood with the blood of Mary. Not at all. The DNA of Jesus is Divine. The only Divine DNA from the Holy Spirit. You tell us Mary's mother was without sin therefore Mary was without sin. You are so stupid it is beyond belief.
You said, quote, "Maybe you ought to provide the list that Jesus Christ said we are to put in the Bible in order to base all His teachings on." End quote.
The Bible tells us.....
II Timothy 3:1617, 16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
<quoted text>
Hey stupid, if I want any garbage from you I WILL SQUEEZE YOUR HEAD! Go back to the hole you live in.
Wow. your demeanor is that of someone who's having trouble sustaining a lie. If you were presenting truth, like we Catholics are, there would be no need to continuously call everyone stupid, idiot, moron, dumb.
2Tim 3:16 is not nor ever was, endorsing Bible alone. It does not say Bible alone. You're saying it, but the verse isn't.
Besides, Paul was speaking of the OT Books, including the 7 you guys removed.
Christians didn't have a Bible yet. Paul wasn't done writing the rest of his letters. Peter didn't write yet.. That's what truth is, oldgee. You should try embracing it for once.
Give me verse where Jesus gives the list of inspired Books. There isn't a list is there? That fact alone debunks sola scripture, because you would need to go outside of scripture to get the list. That means it takes an earthly infallible authority to decide on a list of inspired Books. Its common sense Ol g.
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#479351 Sep 30, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
In Adam ALL DIE!
You wrote:

In Adam, all die (PHYSICAL)......

BUT,

In Jesus, all live (SPIRITUAL)......
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#479352 Sep 30, 2013
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Bible tells us of an "all the more important" salvation? Where might I find the Biblical verse that describes the salvation of Mary as an "all the more important" method? By the way, what is an
"all the more important" method of salvation and how does it differ from the salvation of any other human being?
<quoted text>
Cly, thank you once again for sharing your ignorance. It is obvious you have never cracked a Bible. Keep believing Rome instead of the word of God and let me know what the Bible has to say about such a person.
You said, quote, "God needed to procreate with a female in order to manifest Himself as a human being. Do you need a Bible verse where it says that?" End quote.
God did not need a female. He chose to USE a female. He chose to be made in our likeness minus sin.
You said, quote, "God can not mix His DNA With sin in order to create the perfect manifestation of Himself. Sin and God are separate. Do you demand a Bible verse for that too?" End quote.
God did not mix His blood with the blood of Mary. Not at all. The DNA of Jesus is Divine. The only Divine DNA from the Holy Spirit. You tell us Mary's mother was without sin therefore Mary was without sin. You are so stupid it is beyond belief.
You said, quote, "Maybe you ought to provide the list that Jesus Christ said we are to put in the Bible in order to base all His teachings on." End quote.
The Bible tells us.....
II Timothy 3:1617, 16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
<quoted text>
Hey stupid, if I want any garbage from you I WILL SQUEEZE YOUR HEAD! Go back to the hole you live in.
Where do you go church?
Chuck

Sunbury, OH

#479353 Sep 30, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. your demeanor is that of someone who's having trouble sustaining a lie. If you were presenting truth, like we Catholics are, there would be no need to continuously call everyone stupid, idiot, moron, dumb.
2Tim 3:16 is not nor ever was, endorsing Bible alone. It does not say Bible alone. You're saying it, but the verse isn't.
Besides, Paul was speaking of the OT Books, including the 7 you guys removed.
Christians didn't have a Bible yet. Paul wasn't done writing the rest of his letters. Peter didn't write yet.. That's what truth is, oldgee. You should try embracing it for once.
Give me verse where Jesus gives the list of inspired Books. There isn't a list is there? That fact alone debunks sola scripture, because you would need to go outside of scripture to get the list. That means it takes an earthly infallible authority to decide on a list of inspired Books. Its common sense Ol g.
I haven`t been on here in days and the first thing I read is Clay the Clown.

Tell me..did you call Confront an idiot maybe a week ago? Tell me you didn't please so I can catch you in a lie...again.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#479354 Sep 30, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have told you before Ox, your BIBLE ONLY Protestant lies, the distortion of the truth, the deceit,and the manipulation and twisting of the TRUTH of the bible and TRUE Church History ARE ALL YOURS!!! YOU CAN HAVE IT!!! I have heard it ALL for over 35 years as a bible only Protestant. You can go "wade in the muck" of your bible only lies with the rest of your 42,000 contradicting (mis-guided) fundies.'''''' I/we as Catholics will continue to rely on the TRUTH of AUTHENTICATED BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL TRUTH that continues to remain as TRUTH for over 2000 years of Jesus Christ and His One True Apostolic Catholic Church. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT!!!!!
As I showed you, when you said the caticks had not changed any teaching in faith and morals, you lied....

"I/we as Catholics will continue to rely on the TRUTH of AUTHENTICATED BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL TRUTH that continues to remain as TRUTH for over 2000 years of Jesus Christ and His One True Apostolic Catholic Church. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT!!!!!"

You are consistent!!!! Keep on keeping on calling your pope a liar!!!! Ah love it!!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#479355 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link is bad. No, he didn't change anything.
Why was artificial contraception considered a sin in all protestant sects until the 1930's and now it's no biggie?
Birth Control | Catholic Answers
www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control&#82... ;
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching condemning contraception as sinful.

Seems to me, when catlicks condemn the use of condoms and the pope says it is OK to use them, constitutes a change!!!!!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#479356 Sep 30, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I doubt it, but I'm not really interested enough to look into it. I will say this, however, since a few others here have tried to pull that same little number thinking it's a "gottcha" because we always point out the fact that there is so much chaos and disagreement in protestantism.......It's not the same thing. We don't go out and open up our own ecclesial gathering space, starting yet another denomination the way the fundies do. It also depends on what the person disagrees with. If I have time, I'll read his post in a bit.
You wonderfully explain away truth with "I doubt it".

Really?

At least hojo took the time to research the truth.

BTW - don't bother reading his post, because you'll get more information from this doing the research yourself.

You do want to understand your religion, right?
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#479357 Sep 30, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth Control | Catholic Answers
www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control&#82... ;
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching condemning contraception as sinful.
Seems to me, when catlicks condemn the use of condoms and the pope says it is OK to use them, constitutes a change!!!!!
But the Pope never said its ok for Catholics to use contraception. Ever. Do you seriously not think we can see what you're about, Ox?
You're a liar and a cheat; a manipulator of scripture. There is not one hint of Christ in anything you say. I don't get you.
Anyway, your only desire is to get under peoples skin and you almost did it with me .

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#479358 Sep 30, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The Blessed Virgin.
Are babies and the mentally handicapped without sin?
Was....was...was....was...quot e: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#479359 Sep 30, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Pope never said its ok for Catholics to use contraception. Ever. Do you seriously not think we can see what you're about, Ox?
You're a liar and a cheat; a manipulator of scripture. There is not one hint of Christ in anything you say. I don't get you.
Anyway, your only desire is to get under peoples skin and you almost did it with me .
Seems to me, when catlicks condemn the use of condoms and the pope says it is OK to use them, constitutes a change!!!!!
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#479360 Sep 30, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven`t been on here in days and the first thing I read is Clay the Clown.
Tell me..did you call Confront an idiot maybe a week ago? Tell me you didn't please so I can catch you in a lie...again.
Yeah I called Confrint an idiot and I'm certain I've called you one too. What's your point? I would say its few and far between for me.
I think I called Confrint one after the 500th time he falsely accused me of worshiping a statue. I probably won't do it again until number 700. It takes a good dosage of the man's ignorance to cause me to say an insult back. Do you see the difference?
Its obvious to anyone who's on this thread, we Catholics show remarkable restraint. You on the other hand, can not post one single reply without calling someone a name in order to defend your position. That's called insecurity. You don't actually buy into what your telling us... I don't see how any of you can buy into it at this point. I believe you're trying to sustain the lie of sola scripture and your frustration shows.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#479361 Sep 30, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Pope never said its ok for Catholics to use contraception. Ever. Do you seriously not think we can see what you're about, Ox?
You're a liar and a cheat; a manipulator of scripture. There is not one hint of Christ in anything you say. I don't get you.
Anyway, your only desire is to get under peoples skin and you almost did it with me .
The issue of contraception has always been a heavily contested issue in the Catholic Church. That’s why a headline in this morning’s Telegraph “The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift” stopped me in my tracks.

Pure logic escapes you..

The Catholics had a ban on condoms..The Catholic ban on condoms affected only the Catholics!!!! The lifting of this ban affects only Catholics!!!!
CHUCK

Sunbury, OH

#479362 Sep 30, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I called Confrint an idiot and I'm certain I've called you one too. What's your point? I would say its few and far between for me.
I think I called Confrint one after the 500th time he falsely accused me of worshiping a statue. I probably won't do it again until number 700. It takes a good dosage of the man's ignorance to cause me to say an insult back. Do you see the difference?
Its obvious to anyone who's on this thread, we Catholics show remarkable restraint. You on the other hand, can not post one single reply without calling someone a name in order to defend your position. That's called insecurity. You don't actually buy into what your telling us... I don't see how any of you can buy into it at this point. I believe you're trying to sustain the lie of sola scripture and your frustration shows.
Just making the point you're a hypocrite ...thanks.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#479363 Sep 30, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth Control | Catholic Answers
www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control&#82... ;
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching condemning contraception as sinful.
Seems to me, when catlicks condemn the use of condoms and the pope says it is OK to use them, constitutes a change!!!!!
If he said it, it would be a change, but he didn't say it. Why would you listen to the lame stream media?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#479364 Sep 30, 2013
One will never be able to prove incontrovertibly that the Catholic Church changed dogma. Any effort to do so will fizzle. It is futile to undertake the argument.

At the same time, it is less taxing to claim that the Church changes a teaching, although there are church responses for this as well.

Lets take the first undertaking.

One insurmountable obstacle to proving the Church changed a dogma is with the exception of basic tenets of Christianity, when something is proposed by the Church, it is not made crystal clear where it belongs in a range of categories used by the Church.
Here are presented a few. purpose is to more clearly illustrate my point not to mock the Church.

The Division of Dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith.

(1) GENERAL OR SPECIAL (2) MATERIAL OR FORMAL (3) PURE OR MIXED (4) SYMBOLIC OR NON-SYMBOLIC;
==========

Dogmas also can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

SPECIAL DOGMAS are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special Dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all. They are not Revealed Truths transmitted from the Apostles They are not Defined or Proposed by the Church for the Acceptance of the Faithful Generally.

==========
MATERIAL DOGMAS (or Divine Dogmas, or Dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as Revealed; and they are called Formal Dogmas (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered Both as Revealed and Defined.

PURE DOGMAS ( can be known only from Revelation), as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.;

==========
The infallibility of the Magisterium extends also to teachings which are deduced from such truths (FIDES ECCLESIASTICA). These Church teachings or Catholic truths (VERITATES CATHOLICAE) are not a part of divine revelation, yet are intimately related to it. The rejection of these "secondary" teachings is not heretical, but involves the impairment of full communion with the Catholic Church.

FIDES ECCLESIASTICA
There are three categories of these "SECONDARY" TEACHINGS (FIDES ECCLESIASTICA):
•THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS:(conclusiones theologicae) religious truths, deduced from divine revelation and reason.
•DOGMATIC FACTS (facta dogmatica) historical facts, not part of revelation but clearly related to it. For example the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and the Petrine office
•PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTHS, such as existence of the soul, "freedom of will", philosophical definitions used in dogmas such as transubstantiation

==========
1.De fide Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered infallible revelation
2.Fides ecclesiastica Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium, considered infallible revelation
3.Sententia fidei proxima Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4.Sententia certa Church teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation
5.Sententia communis Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research
6.Sententia probabilis Teachings with low degree of certainty
7.Opinio tolerata Opinions tolerated within the Catholic Church, such as pious legends
==========

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#479365 Sep 30, 2013
Moving onto doctrines. Or Teachings. "Changes" ( the Church would say Clarifications) can be identified in the following doctrines/teachings: Original Sin ( less emphasis of juridical in tome). whether those outside the church is saved,the assumption, receiving 1 or 2 forms of the Eucharist, limbo, etc.

I could provide resource material on each issue identified here, but length prohibits this.

Yes, one could say the items changed.

But the Church would argue they were not changed. changed but However, according to the position of doctrinal development, they were not changes. A deeper truth re each of these items were revealed re these items or the Church better clarified what it had already taught.
----------
I welcome correction. I presented this information in an effort to help the 2 differing sides of the "doctrines change" issue understand each other.
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#479366 Sep 30, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
....he just willingly agress that the doctrine was "finalized" in the late 4th C.
.
"Finalized IN WRITING, and had NEVER CHANGED, from the time that Apostles, in Acts 2 (from the oral teachings of Jesus HIMSELF) ministered, preached and taught the early Christians in the Churches of Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Thessalonica, etc.
You think that you can "get away" with lying about this, attempting to (pit) Regina (and other Catholics) against me, just like you "fundies" do (to each other) with your other 42,000 contradicting and inconsistent bible only "fundies" ....Sorry NEW AGE! It's not going to work with us Catholics. We'll leave the constant confusion, conflict and chaos to you Protestant "fundies"
You people have become "experts" at distorting and manipulating the truth!!!

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 min Clearwater 100,404
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 18 min Peter Ross 6,147
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 20 min Peter Ross 445,656
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 27 min Aura Mytha 980,150
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 2 hr shkreli zionism 121,925
News The 'Fake News' Con: A Case Study 5 hr Libhater 58
Treating others with respect 5 hr Sherry Denise N 13
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 hr Pegasus 286,455
More from around the web