Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.
Comments
493,381 - 493,400 of 539,674 Comments Last updated 5 min ago

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511128 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
His unsolicited comment re: St. John was in response to my posting of several scripture passages in support of St. Peter's leadership in the early Church, a belief which is held by the Orthodox Church as well. Blessings.
John, If I am not mistaken was the Bishop to the churches in Asia Minor which became the Orthodox Church as we know it today.

Peter if we are to believe [his] words(not the false teaching of Catholicism) was in Babylon Preaching to the Jews who lived there, which is according to the Bible as Peter was the Apostle to the Jewish Nation.

Of course, the catholics will counter that Peter preached to Cornelius a Gentile,. but this is easily refuted for ONE simple reason. Paul was Not yet converted, and with Peter and Cornelius, all things are done in Gods time, not ours.
truth

Perth, Australia

#511129 Feb 1, 2014
i am not your thief
noooooooooooooooooooooo

i can improve
your multiplay gameeeeeeeeeeeeee
using others as your shield as accuserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

INRI
b-z

where is other letter
proveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

accusersssssssssssssssssssssss sssssss
decivers and posessors
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#511130 Feb 1, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
You:
You said Acts 2:4 moron, not me.
Here is what was written again"
"See the unanimity of the apostles," he says, on Acts 2:4: "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach."
Not the Colon after 4. He says on Acts 2:4: The colon denotes further reading to see what he says on it or about it. "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach."
Galatians 2:9, "In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews."
So here we have the 3 listed as PILLARS of the church. And they accepted Paul. This I believe is the one single time that Peter is not listed first and yet all the other many tells are dsimissed when even here he is considered a Pillar and Paul went to see him specifically. But to you he is Satan and stupid.
You say
Paul rebuked Peter. Peter NEVER rebuked Paul. Just sayin'
Oh yes, from this we are to presume that because Peter who was not practicing what the preached was rebuked this one time brought up in order to give him credibility as an authority was now aserting himself as the clear leader. I think not and Paul himself doesn't agree. No you aren't just saying you were belittling Peter the stupid guy remember? Paul had some contention with his traveling companion too. I don't think any of them were above criticism nor were they perfect in every way. If they had every answer immediately then there would have been no debate on circumcision. However Paul was not bringing it up to belittle Peter the satanic idiot in your opinion.
Love the Altar boy comment btw very touching stuff. I am sure the Holy Spirit gave that to you. lol
Dust Storm said, quote, "Oh yes, from this we are to presume that because Peter who was not practicing what the preached was rebuked this one time brought up in order to give him credibility as an authority was now aserting himself as the clear leader." End quote.

You are saying Peter was rebuked one time? One time by Paul perhaps but many times by Jesus. Do you own a Bible? If so, open it up and read.

Dust Storm said, quote, "Paul had some contention with his traveling companion too." End quote.

Paul had a problem with John Mark. John Mark quit on Paul and Barnabus and went home. Barnabus wanted to take John Mark on their next journey but Paul would not allow it. As a result Paul and Barnabus went separate directions but were reunited.

Paul chastised Peter for preaching a "different" Gospel. A Gospel contrary to what he had learned while Peter was with Jesus. Paul and Barnabus had personality issues. Paul and Peter had Gospel issues. There is a HUGE difference.

You keep saying "I" called Peter satan. Can you read? If not, hire somone to read it for you. Here it is again. Now tell us..........who called Peter satan? Me or Jesus?

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter,“Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Now, who called Peter satan? Did you get it yet?

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511131 Feb 1, 2014
people can say anything they wish concerning Peter but ONE thing is certain, He was the Apostle to the Jews not the gentile, therefore he can not be a leader to any Gentile Church, and by saying that he was,

YOU CALL GOD A LIAR.
truth

Perth, Australia

#511132 Feb 1, 2014
Abraham stay under law of curse!

where is blessing

cavliiiiiiiiiiiiii INRI
truth

Perth, Australia

#511133 Feb 1, 2014
i am not john

nkh=life

accusers
don't used my name in vain

i am sick of you all
truth

Perth, Australia

#511134 Feb 1, 2014
i am catholic
Gods R Delusions but Mine

Orlando, FL

#511135 Feb 1, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Rule #1 in Hollywood Lying 101....never tell a lie that can be easily proven so..
I stole not the man's religious book..I quoted Scripture that appears in any Christian Sacred Word of God....the Bible....
I interpretated not the man's religious book.
I did not call the man a pig for objecting....
Is there sonething else you want to discuss???
Does the holy spirit guide you in interpreting Scripture?

Did you study ancient texts or go to a Seminary?

Do we have evidence of your interpretation throughout the history of Xianity, or is this something new within the past one or two hundred years?

3 simple questions. 3 direct answers?

Honestly, anyone can quote Scripture. You just don't sound very convincing. Why should anyone believe an angry name-caller understands Jesus?

All good questions.
truth

Perth, Australia

#511136 Feb 1, 2014
its written
how many masters and god you have

many many will come in my name
its written
not me

its written

i know for your straighten and power

nkh=life in her been life

by deceivers and possessors

pray before to late

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511137 Feb 1, 2014
truth wrote:
i am catholic
yeah, we believe you are a catholic. we only have to look at the gibberish you have brought to this forum
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#511138 Feb 1, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text> No we dont. Everyone just needs to turn to the Catholic site where everything Caths ever said comes from. Im sure the Caths have built up a lot of trust in their word, especially the Caths here in Topix.
Thanks Nick, blessings to you.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511139 Feb 1, 2014
Tango Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus we see that God fits, in His entirety, into the mind of atemcowboy who decides for himself what God can and cannot do as well as what God can and cannot be. Only Oxbow will continue to worship at his own alter. The rest of us will surely convert to worship the mind of atemcowboy who even God obeys.
you have every right to bring evidence proving that I am wrong in what I state, rather than acting like a second grader.lol
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#511140 Feb 1, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text> I did not say anything re his leadership. Dont twist it. I was speaking of his and his successors supremacy. And you still did not respond to my question.
You wrote:

Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>
"No I don't think that but I am sure you will post in the future that I think that.
"My Protestant comrade" had no value whatsoever in the argument other than inciting emotionalism.
Your exact focus of your discussion with him was the comment v John. However your implication that this does not relate to peter and his successors being head of the Church is disingenuous.
There are many things you believe that I don't believe.."

Is there a question I missed here?
truth

Perth, Australia

#511141 Feb 1, 2014
they will produce miracle like never before

o yee

its written

everything what ever you ad or multiply
its going be loseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee
now you multiply your evil wonderful so nice like never before things

evil serve evil

evil supporting evil;
deserve then all gone then less second as come you will gone for ever

byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy evil
serve your evil
be happy with your wonderfull evillllllllllllllllllllll

did i care for your multiplay miracle

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo
sa davlom doslo
sa davlom ce i otici
kao i sve i prije
bez ikakva blagoslova

you stay under curse of law

don't come to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
go to your nothing plus nobody plus from nowhereeeeeeeeeeeeee
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#511142 Feb 1, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text> Why do you have to twist the truth to make it appear how youd like to appear. ou know very well that the East has an entirely different meaning for the word "primacy"
Yes, the East and West, with many exceptions, sees a difference as to what this "primacy" entails, but they do not disagree that St. Peter had a primacy which is what the protestant Chuck denied and then advance the theory that because scripture cites St. John as the disciple Jesus loved, he should therefore have primacy (whatever that primacy entails).

Your unsolicited post which seemed to attack my opinion and support Chuck's (which is a conrtadiction to Orthodox teaching) is why I thought to perhaps lump you in with the protestants.
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#511143 Feb 1, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>==
There are few that support supremacy as well. But the Cath sites arent happy with this. They have to stretch the truth and claim there are many.
Here is one example.
Dust Storm wrote referring to the following site:
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
HERE IS MY RESPONSE:
RE Response to Quotes from Chrysostom supporting Papal Supremacy:
“Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples"
Chrysosotom used exalted titles often. So did others during this period, including Augustine. This was a style at the time . We should not infer primary of jurisdiction from these titles.
Chrysostom uses coryphaeus, for example to refer to Peter, This was a general title He uses it to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul.
St. John Chrysostom:“‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession”[St. John, Homily 53 on St. Matthew].
It's a re-hash. East and West both agree St. Peter had a primacy. What primacy entails is between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Chuck the protestant says no, it should be St. John because scripture cites him as the apostle Jesus loved.

Why you continue to fight tooth and nail against every Catholic thought and support every protestant argument, regardless of Orthodox, teaching is beyond me. If I had to guess it's probably because you have a tremendous dislike of the Catholics on this board. For that, I'm truly sorry.
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#511144 Feb 1, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>===
and perhaps little John Chrysostom
St. John Chrysostom wasn't "either/or" like most the protestants and maybe you, he was "both/and" like the his fellow Catholics.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#511145 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the East and West, with many exceptions, sees a difference as to what this "primacy" entails, but they do not disagree that St. Peter had a primacy which is what the protestant Chuck denied and then advance the theory that because scripture cites St. John as the disciple Jesus loved, he should therefore have primacy (whatever that primacy entails).
Your unsolicited post which seemed to attack my opinion and support Chuck's (which is a conrtadiction to Orthodox teaching) is why I thought to perhaps lump you in with the protestants.
Primacy? Peter? You are kidding, right?
LTM

Sioux Lookout, Canada

#511146 Feb 1, 2014
Sweet hour of prayer! Sweet hour of prayer!That calls me from a world of care,And bids me at my Father’s throneMake all my wants and wishes known.—WalfordGod fills our heart with peace when we pour out our heart to Him.

Heard By God
February 1, 2014 — by Jennifer Benson Schuldt
Subscribe on iTunes
Play MP3 (Mobile)
Select a Language Burmese Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Simplified) French German Indonesian Japanese Khmer (Cambodian) Polish Portuguese Russian Spanish Thai Vietnamese
Read: 1 Samuel 1:9-20
Hannah spoke in her heart; ... her voice was not heard.—1 Samuel 1:13
Bible in a Year:
Exodus 27-28; Matthew 21:1-22After reading several children’s books with my daughter, I told her that I was going to read a grown-up book for a while and then we would look at books together again. I opened the cover and began to read in silence. A few minutes later, she looked at me doubtfully and said,“Mommy, you aren’t really reading.” She assumed that since I wasn’t speaking, I wasn’t processing the words.

Like reading, prayer can be silent. Hannah, who longed for a child of her own, visited the temple and “spoke in her heart” as she prayed. Her lips were moving, but “her voice was not heard”(1 Sam. 1:13). Eli the priest saw but misunderstood what was happening. She explained,“I ... have poured out my soul before the Lord”(v.15). God heard Hannah’s silent prayer request and gave her a son (v.20).

Since God searches our hearts and minds (Jer. 17:10), He sees and hears every prayer—even the ones that never escape our lips. His all-knowing nature makes it possible for us to pray with full confidence that He will hear and answer (Matt. 6:8,32). Because of this, we can continually praise God, ask Him for help, and thank Him for blessings—even when no one else can hear us.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#511147 Feb 1, 2014
Tango Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus we see that God fits, in His entirety, into the mind of atemcowboy who decides for himself what God can and cannot do as well as what God can and cannot be. Only Oxbow will continue to worship at his own alter. The rest of us will surely convert to worship the mind of atemcowboy who even God obeys.
LOL!
You are fantasizing in public again.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 3 min Huh 734,185
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 min Black Thunder 42 600,360
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min superwilly 226,601
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 16 min WasteWater 258,258
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 21 min Liam R 441,231
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 35 min Tender Mercies 4,177
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 58 min Porn Addict 69,796
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 2 hr Jim Justice 118,144
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••