Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665126 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

#506437 Jan 15, 2014
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written:'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul,[Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

"It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

"You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life." Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346),(ante A.D. 733).

"St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." John of Damascene, PG (96:1)(A.D. 747-751).

Perth, Australia

#506438 Jan 15, 2014

spread your hand lags and body
o don't be scare

dear Christ
please lift me up
where on that Cross

its so nice
nobody waiting there
no friends no any priest
no any relatives

you and your Cross
nothing else

its free ticket
you going there without any petrol
no any gas energy
no electric power

simple up
then good by
o you will be lucky say that
good by my kids if you have

Power of Cross there is a light
don't worry about light
just give yourself
there on that cross where light exist

o you know
smooth silky skin
they going to be under high power of that light
you need see
they liked died but can't
open wounds

i walk between them i see what i have to be see

i walk in this city too
its darkness they died nobody move
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo

i simple walk between them as alive as i am today

pray go if you pure and honest
remember they will attack every day
don't be afraid
don't put that in your mind
don't be afraid

give yourself on Cross
there you are complete winner over everything

not any documents exist from corrupt world

there its so nice thereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

there no law exist
there not love exist, love is complete there
there is complete suffering
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506439 Jan 15, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).
Once again, CIB the king of ad hominem, shows his fruits.
Hello McAnthony tap tap

Let me post the whole thing here in further posts

but first let me say this it is highly contested, that this was from Hippolytus but I see no issue with it, the word in the original language translated baptize is a different word than later used when baptizing the adults.

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome from

2 2 He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be irreproachable.
2When his name is announced and approved, the people will gather on the Lord's day with the
council of elders and the bishops who are present. 3With the assent of all, the bishops will place
their hands upon him, with the council of elders standing by, quietly. 4Everyone will keep silent,
praying in their hearts for the descent of the Spirit. 5After this, one of the bishops present, at the
request of all, shall lay his hand upon him who is being ordained bishop, and pray, saying,
I was wondering in 2 the people chose the Bishop do you still do that in the RCC today in my fellowship we do. Why do you hold to one part of the Apostolic tradition and not the rest.


Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#506440 Jan 15, 2014
Tango Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're quoting an obscure author who had to turn to self-publishing in order to his "work" published. He's quoting a still more obscure author. If you want to quote Catholic Church Canon Law why not quote directly from Catholic Church Canon Law?
When you read the quote from the obscure author who's quoting a more obscure author and pay attention to what the "quote" actually says it appears that Canon Law said don't let the laity have a copy of the Word of God except from the "...motive of devotion...", and don't let them have a "translation" instead of the book itself. What's so bad about that? Would you like to use your copy of the Bible for unholy purposes or just a specially edited version to support your heresy? I'm guessing maybe both, or at least heresy.
but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books. illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.(Good enough for me!!!)

Research Interests: Ius Novissimum, Legislative Histories & Theory, Canonistics (Good enough for me!!!)

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.(Good enough for me!!!)

Additional Sources:
Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, Pierre Allix, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213 [Canon 14].(Good enough for me!!!!)

You bring to light the old adage "If you don't like the message...shoot the messenger!!!"

Perth, Australia

#506441 Jan 15, 2014
after all law not exist
law of evil corupt world died on CROSS yep
ones when you give yourself there you are with full victory over them..
they can't judge any more
they are nobody nothing from nowhere 000

serve your evil

or give yourself on CROSS
they liked judge

o well i been thereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
now so what
why you affraid of them
anyone coming back from that Cross
not to much

Are you for sure Paul Saul is been there on that CROSS?
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo
Did you prosecuted me?
Yes you are liar and all liars with you who ever they are liars for so long.

be free tell them who they areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

you are freeeeeeeeeeeeeee with CROSS
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506442 Jan 15, 2014
16 They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those are who are
brought forward for instruction. 2If someone is a pimp who supports prostitutes, he shall
cease or shall be rejected. 3If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be taught not to
make idols. Either let them cease or let them be rejected. 4If someone is an actor or does
shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected.

Does the RCC reject actors Anthony

LOL I mean really your the one that thinks this one is the real deal.
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506443 Jan 15, 2014
5All the women should cover their heads with a pallium, and not simply with a piece of
linen, which is not a proper veil.

Do the women in the RCC follow this one too again this is your quote you use it as if it is legit
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506444 Jan 15, 2014
20 When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined,
whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether they honored the widows,
whether they visited the sick, and whether they have done every good work.. 2If those who
bring them forward bear witness for them that they have done so, then let them hear the Gospel.

So they chose Infants mmmm but how did they examine their lives to have lived honorably

It sure appears like maybe you threw the context out with the baptismal water.
MMMMmmmm indeed
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506445 Jan 15, 2014

further from your quote

9When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each
of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your servicea, and all your works."
10After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every
evil spirit depart from you." 11Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on
nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon,
likewise, will go down with them into the water. 12When each of them to be baptized has
gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do
you believe in God the Father Almighty?" 13And the one being baptized shall answer, "I
believe." 1

are we to believe the babies stood in the water naked and confessed


Sutton, Canada

#506446 Jan 15, 2014
"Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?"

John 3:3-7,“Jesus answered and said to him,'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him,'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered,'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you,'You must be born again.'"

When first considering this passage, it is important to note that nowhere in the context of the passage is baptism even mentioned. While baptism is mentioned later in this chapter (John 3:22-30), that is in a totally different setting (Judea instead of Jerusalem) and at a different time from the discussion with Nicodemus. This is not to say Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, either from the Jewish practice of baptizing Gentile converts to Judaism, or from John the Baptist’s ministry. However, simply reading these verses in context would give one no reason to assume Jesus was speaking of baptism, unless one was looking to read into the passage a preconceived idea or theology. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted.


Sutton, Canada

#506448 Jan 15, 2014
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of water” as evidence. As one person has put it,“Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate explanation of baptism.” However, had Jesus actually wanted to say that one must be baptized to be saved, He clearly could have simply stated,“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Further, if Jesus had made such a statement, He would have contradicted numerous other Bible passages that make it clear that salvation is by faith (John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved. A common reply to that question is:“The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?

If “being born of water and the Spirit” is not referring to baptism, then what does it mean? Traditionally, there have been two interpretations of this phrase. The first is that being “born of water” is being used by Jesus to refer to natural birth (with water referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb) and that being born of the “Spirit” indicates spiritual birth. While that is certainly a possible interpretation of the term “born of water” and would seem to fit the context of Nicodemus’ question about how a man could be born “when he is old,” it is not the best interpretation given the context of this passage. After all, Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. What He was doing was explaining to Nicodemus his need to be “born from above” or “born again.”

concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506449 Jan 15, 2014
23Then, after sealingb each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace
and say,
"The Lord be with you."
And the one who has been baptized shall say,
"And with your spirit."
24So shall he do to each one.

Did the infants in the 3rd century have the abilty to speak and say the lord be with you.

Again you know not context or you ignore it .
Tango Bravo

Wichita, KS

#506450 Jan 15, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially the ones that you believe he rejects to in turn spend eternity in hell.
You are see-through.
God loves all of His children. Including you.
concerned in Brasil

Copenhagen, Denmark

#506451 Jan 15, 2014
further we read

39We have delivered these things to you only briefly concerning baptism and the oblation
because you have already been instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and the
rest according to what is written.

According to what is written Ahhh but according to the RCC we did not get our bible to late 400 AD so what is he refering to baptism is not taught in the OT

ya know your between a rock pun intended and a hard place LOL

Leesburg, GA

#506452 Jan 15, 2014
Tango Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it spitting in the face of the Holy Spirit to produce acts in an effort to reserve Redemption, or is it spitting in the face of the Holy Spirit to relax and rely on faith alone?
You are lost, all our acts are filthy in the sight of God, did you ever hear of Jesus? Belief in Him alone is what Saves us, HE DID IT.

Then and only then can we serve HIM.

Sutton, Canada

#506453 Jan 15, 2014
The second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5).

The Barclay Daily Study Bible describes this concept in this way:“There are two thoughts here. Water is the symbol of cleansing. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, when we love Him with all our heart, the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten. The Spirit is the symbol of power. When Jesus takes possession of our lives it is not only that the past is forgotten and forgiven; if that were all, we might well proceed to make the same mess of life all over again; but into life there enters a new power which enables us to be what by ourselves we could never be and to do what by ourselves we could never do. Water and the Spirit stand for the cleansing and the strengthening power of Christ, which wipes out the past and gives victory in the future.”

Therefore, the “water” mentioned in this verse is not literal physical water but rather the “living water” Jesus promised the woman at the well in John 4:10 and the people in Jerusalem in John 7:37-39. It is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings forth spiritual life to a dead sinner (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Titus 3:5). Jesus reinforces this truth in John 3:7 when He restates that one must be born again and that this newness of life can only be produced by the Holy Spirit (John 3:8).


Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#506454 Jan 15, 2014
Tango Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Scripture they hear and read is Scripture. What they hear at Mass is read from a Bible. What they read at Mass are quotes taken directly from the Bible and printed in "a worship aid in the pew." ("Practicing Catholics know they read and hear Scripture at every Mass.")
I think you're making up a quote from the Msgr. since I read along in the "worship aid" at every Mass. Of course there are some who go to Mass and listen instead of reading along, but you're either making up the quote or editing it out of context.
Assuming it's true that Catholics were ever discouraged from reading the Bible it's still true that Christian scholars have always done their best to explain not only what the Bible said but also what the Bible meant. Hence the Catholic Catechism. Two thousand years of scholarship takes precedence over your individual interpretations, unless you happen to be the greatest and most learned Bible scholar the world has ever seen. And you aren't.
interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.

FYI....the mid-twentieth century is 1950.....

Sutton, Canada

#506455 Jan 15, 2014
There are several reasons why this is the correct interpretation of the phrase “born of water and the Spirit.” First of all, we should note that the Greek word translated “again” has two possible meanings. The first one is “again,” and the second one is “from above.” Nicodemus apparently assumed the first meaning “again” and found that idea incomprehensible. That is why he could not understand how as a grown man he could re-enter his mother’s womb and be “born again” physically. Therefore, Jesus restates what He had just told Nicodemus in a different way so that it would be clear He was referring to being “born from above.” In other words, both “born from above” and “born of water and Spirit” are two ways of saying the same thing.

Second, it is important to note the Greek grammar in this verse would seem to indicate “being born of water” and “being born of the Spirit” are thought of as one item, not two. Therefore, it is not speaking of two separate births, as Nicodemus incorrectly thought, but of one birth, that of being “born from above” or the spiritual birth that is necessary for anyone to “see the kingdom of God.” This need for one to be “born again,” or to experience spiritual birth, is so important that Jesus tells Nicodemus of its necessity three different times in this passage of Scripture (John 3:3, 3:5, 3:7).

Third, water is often used symbolically in the Bible to refer to the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying a believer, whereby God cleanses and purifies the believer’s heart or soul. In many places in both the Old and New Testaments, the work of the Holy Spirit is compared to water (Isaiah 44:3; John 7:38-39).

Jesus rebukes Nicodemus in John 3:10 by asking him:“Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” This implies that what Jesus had just told him was something Nicodemus should have known and understood from the Old Testament. What is it that Nicodemus, as a teacher of the Old Testament, should have known and understood? It is that God had promised in the Old Testament a time was coming in which He would:“sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”(Ezekiel 36:25-27). Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to recall and understand one of the key Old Testament passages pertaining to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). Nicodemus should have been expecting this. Why would Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding baptism considering the fact that baptism is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament?


Sutton, Canada

#506456 Jan 15, 2014
While this verse does not teach baptism is required for salvation, we should be careful not to neglect baptism’s importance. Baptism is the sign or the symbol for what takes place when one is born again. Baptism’s importance should not be downplayed or minimized. However, baptism does not save us. What saves us is the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, when we are born again and regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

Recommended Resources: Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ by Schriener and Wright and Logos Bible Software.

Read more:
Tango Bravo

Wichita, KS

#506457 Jan 15, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
ITB A.K.A. Tango: You are calling Msgr. Daniel Kutys a liar!!!!
Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings
By Msgr. Daniel Kutys
Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if asked how often they read Scripture, the answer would be different. Practicing Catholics know they read and hear Scripture at every Mass. Many also recognize that basic prayers Catholics say, such as the Our Father and the Hail Mary, are scriptural. But for most Catholics, the Scripture they hear and read is not from the Bible. It is from a worship aid in the pew.
Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.
Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Notice: the Scripture they hear and read is not from the Bible.....
And: They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves.
And: Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
FYI....the mid-twentieth century is 1950...... I am talking about the mid-thirties!!!!!
Most of the Catholics of that era that I know are quite familiar with the Bible. That can't happen without studying the Bible.
You're a strong example of someone from that era that may or may not have studied the Bible but clearly doesn't understand it.

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
Things poping up while i was sitting on my dads... (Jun '11) 6 min Tramp353 83
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 9 min Glitter7145 63
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 min karl44 87,900
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 13 min It aint necessari... 18
China Portable LED Sign, Truck LED Display, Bus... 13 min Crush7537 2
Looking for a naughty girl. 15 min solrac 8
China Taxi Top LED Display, Bus LED Display, Tr... 17 min Catch5623 2
The Future of Politics in America 1 hr Insults Are Easier 177
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Crushy9254 284,475
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 1 hr Dolly6807 447
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Spank9090 977,198
More from around the web