Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 586624 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.

Gods R Delusions but Mine

Orlando, FL

#511171 Feb 1, 2014
OK, 2000 years ago, god made one true church for the purpose of "saving mankind."

Pretty noble cause.

So how well has God's own church done in 2000 years?

What percentage of humanity is being saved according to God's rules?

98%?

75%?

50%? If it's true, how could it not save at least 50%?

40%?

30%?

25%? This is beginning to look suspicious.

20%?

10%? Optimistic.

5%? True believers, those who actually attend Mass as required?

What kind of pathetic god considers a 5%-10% salvation rate successful?

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#511172 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.
Didn't Jesus,say in more,ways,than one,he,who is,first shall be last..
Don't take,the, better seat at the table
He,did not seem to embrace ANY sort of primacy in His,parAbles,or preaching or words,to the,disciples...

I honestly DO not think He meant for ANY HIGH PRIEST /pope as,the,Jews,did,not do well with the concept at all.

No HIGH PRIEST But Jesus we are told,

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511173 Feb 1, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time I converse with people like you a brand new revelation comes from left field. You say Jesus was NOT related to Mary?? What the heck kinda minister do you claim to be?
I swear, anything to separate yourselves from the Catholic Church. You say Peters an idiot and Mary was an incompetent Mother who wasn't related to Jesus in any way. She was Just a stupid Bimbo who happened to say yes?
I wouldn't be surprised if idiots like you would teach that she's in hell for neglecting Jesus when He was 12. You're a moron Preston.
clay, my intelligence is far above what you possess.

so lets look at what God and the Bible says.

Hebrews 10:5 - Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me."

here we see that it is God that prepared a body for Jesus, taking away ANY relationship through a blood line. why is that so difficult for anyone to understand?

and at no time, have I ever suggested that she was in hell. only a person with your lack of Biblical knowledge would bring that up.

I mentioned her leaving Jesus as proof that she was human and makes mistakes. to bad that you cant see that. but I understand that lies told to you are more believable than the truth. if you depended on being truthful, you wouldn't be a catholic.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#511174 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I ASKED IT TWICE

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#511175 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you, both Catholics and Orthodox will rot in hell because we believe a "cracker" is Jesus and "worship" Mary and the saints. Now why the hell should any Catholic or Orthodox give a crap what you say or think?
I care what he thinks. I may not always agree but he is not an enemy.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#511176 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Nick, blessings to you.
I know you are sincere.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#511177 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.
Lies. I was talking about supremacy not primacy, unless the Orthodox now are under the Pope. I missed that one. Keep twisting what I posted though.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511178 Feb 1, 2014
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text> I know you are sincere.
[Lies. I was talking about supremacy not primacy, unless the Orthodox now are under the Pope. I missed that one. Keep twisting what I posted though.]

Nick, a person(Anthony) cant be sincere and twist and lie constantly.

they must be judged on what they say and do.

I present thoughts and doctrines and I back those ideas on what is written in the Bible, now what some one has taught me.

My teacher from the beginning of my Salvation has always been God and Him alone.

anyone, even tango, can dispute my words, if they are able to, by using what God has written. opinions don't count, nor words from other men, can or will supersede what God has told us.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#511179 Feb 1, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
HOJO says.........I'll take it up with my parish priest at confession!!!!
Michael says........I am sure you will have lots to tell him. Best take a picnic basket. You will b there awhile.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511180 Feb 1, 2014
here is what the Bible says. you know that book the catholics allegedly gave to us, which of course they mock and don't follow.

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.…

here we read(can you clay) that the pillars of the council gave their approval concerning Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles, and they of course would continue their ministry to the Jewish People, both those who were in Israel and also those who were in other Nations, such as Babylon where Peter went. James the brother of Jesus stayed and was killed, John it is [believed] went up into Syria and Turkey and there established what is known today as the Orthodox Church, as those Jewish believers in Antioch became known as Christians.

Now then, the Bible is clear that Peter, James and John gave their approval for Paul to have primacy over the gentile followers. Paul went North, Peter went East.

you catholics cant have it both Ways. God gave the Gentiles to the Apostle Paul, not peter.

you can lie and say God gave the gentiles(Christians) to Peter all you want, but it aint the Truth

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#511181 Feb 1, 2014
Husker wrote:
So that's where you got that idea...lol
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#511182 Feb 1, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
here is what the Bible says.
Ok that'll be enough. You don't need to elaborate anymore. I already know you're just some guy in 21st century America with a Bible. To start off with: "here is what the Bible says", tells me I should ignore you right away. Thanks for trying though!
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#511183 Feb 1, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Bartholomew, Andrew, Mark, Thomas, Jude (Thaddeus) are largely credited with setting up the eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those Churches are still there today. If you bothered to look into what they teach about the word of God, you'd be horrified to learn it ain't anything close to what you say. If you went back in a time machine, they wouldn't know what the heck kinda Christianity you were preaching. Its all about the Eucharist, Preston. It ain't about your interpretations of SOME of their writings.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#511184 Feb 1, 2014
Tango Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your English version of the Bible is the centuries-long work of scholars. Why do you refuse to accept their translation? Your English version was approved by experts only to be reinterpreted to mean something else by you. You're adding to the Bible and reinterpreting Jesus' words from English to Greek and back into a different take on the English in order to do it.
You don't know what language Jesus used when He spoke the words originally and you don't know how many other languages it was translated into either verbally or by writing before it was finally translated into English. But you insist that your spin on what Jesus said and meant is the only possible interpretation after 2000 years. You'll pardon me if I choose not to put a lot of trust in you and your spin.
You do not have to prove, over and over, that certain fumes have turned what little brain you once had, to mush!!!!

The Spoken English New Testament (SENT) is an original translation of the New Testament from first-century Koine Greek into contemporary spoken English.

A fresh scholarly New Testament translation from Koine Greek ...SENT is a New Testament that you are going to thoroughly enjoy reading.

Welcome to what we hope will become a great New Testament Greek dictionary. We are starting with some basic Koine Greek information,

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#511185 Feb 1, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Bartholomew, Andrew, Mark, Thomas, Jude (Thaddeus) are largely credited with setting up the eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those Churches are still there today. If you bothered to look into what they teach about the word of God, you'd be horrified to learn it ain't anything close to what you say. If you went back in a time machine, they wouldn't know what the heck kinda Christianity you were preaching. Its all about the Eucharist, Preston. It ain't about your interpretations of SOME of their writings.
LOL!
And if you went back in a time machine 2000+ years preaching your doctrine the world would be wondering what kind of heresy you were trying to bestow upon them as well. Where was your deity 4000 years ago? Unheard of is where. Pretty sad performance for your omnipotent creator huh?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#511186 Feb 1, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you are slow, so I'll type slowly:
The source you are plagiarizing above correctly uses "whom" as an object of the preposition "of". That places it in the objective case, where "whom" is appropriate.
The sentences *you* wrote had whom in the subjective case. You did not use the word as an object of a preposition or a verb.
Back to school for you.
Vatican City, Lazio Picture: Everything is soo big... Wish i knew whom built it !!!- Check out TripAdvisor members' 11673 candid photos and videos of Vatican ...

Wish I knew whom built those churces!!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#511187 Feb 1, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is an "objective" use of the word and is correct grammar.
You really are quite ignorant in your own arrogance.
Ancient proverb:
- People bring about their own undoing through their tongues.
You ought to know!!!! You are the most undone on this forum!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#511188 Feb 1, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not falsely accused you, thief.
Now go find a permalink where I actually lie.
What you have is incurable!!!
see any of your posts where you are falsely accusing me.....
I have provided a hugh multitude of them....Lying Snake

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#511189 Feb 1, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you're ignorant, child.
You prove it every time you use "whom" in the subjective case or use a plagiarized example of its proper usage in the objective case to justify your misuse.
You don't know anything....you said you only think you know....

Put this in your smoke and pipe it....For Whom the Bell Tolls is a novel by Ernest Hemingway published in 1940. It tells the story of Robert Jordan, a young American in the International Brigades attached
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#511190 Feb 1, 2014
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox...
The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for Rome's bishop, Orthodox Christians argue that the tradition of Rome's primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy.
Catholic Cardinal and theologian Yves Congar stated
"The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West ... In according Rome a ‘primacy of honor’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century.
It seems you debunked your own position by siding with the eastern Orthodox. They have absolutely nothing in common with your theology. You both disagree with Pope Francis' office. That's all.

All one needs to do is examine the history of Christianity in the east vs west. The way I see it, upon breaking with Rome, the east was smothered by Islam on through the reign of the Soviet Union. Only recently with the fall of the Iron Curtain, have you even learned who the Orthodox are. Em I correct Oldgee? Did you know about the Orthodox growing up? Most likely no. My point is: how can they have been the will of the Lord, when they were largely anonymous for the last 1,000 yrs. Its simple: the world knew all along who the Bishop of Rome was and the rest of the world didn't know who the patriarchs were. The Church Jesus started has to be a visible clear indication. It can't be a hidden secret Church.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Christian with Jesus 831,578
Was Adolf Hitler right after all? (Jun '10) 1 hr TommyEmilou14 17
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 176,592
News Many Tennesseans remain opposed to same-sex unions 2 hr MamasDaddysKuzinsBro 3
Why are white people so insecure ? (Feb '10) 2 hr Whats up 61
is it a good idea to date a mexican guy? (Feb '09) 2 hr Sllskksk 181
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 2 hr Smokin Joe 121,747
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr TIM958 611,974
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr Mr Wiggley 443,009
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 15 hr Tony17 99,363
More from around the web