Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 573,728
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#530262 Apr 19, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text> He was talking about the Pharisees and Counsel, but it would apply to anyone misrepresenting the word..
You mean like OxBreath, right?
truth

Perth, Australia

#530263 Apr 19, 2014
i don't mean nothing to anyone

holy spirit will show way
i told you don't listen corrupt diploma and lustful world

zdravo tijelo isusovo
mrtvo u grob sahranjeno
zdravo tijelo isusovo
treci danak uskrsnulo=graveyard is open they moving and weak up

pray holy spirit will revile to you

za proliche krvi svete
digni grijehe sve proklete
truth

Perth, Australia

#530264 Apr 19, 2014
golden light on the end
pure golden light
don't be liar

poor and shameful evil accusers full of lust
wicket evil world
Liam

United States

#530265 Apr 19, 2014
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”(1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter,“Babylon,” was the literal place by that name.
Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.
As to the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, there is no proof that he even visited that city. In fact, Peter himself states that he wrote his first letter from Babylon. The Catholic argument that Peter used “Babylon” as a cryptic reference to Rome is groundless.
The real Babylon existed in Peter’s day. Furthermore, Babylon had a sizable Jewish community. Since Jesus assigned Peter to concentrate his preaching on the circumcised Jews, it is altogether reasonable to believe that Peter visited Babylon for this purpose.
Peter never referred to himself as anything more than one of Christ’s apostles.(2 Peter 1:1) Nowhere in the Bible is he addressed as “Holy Father,”“Supreme Pontiff,” or “Pope”
When Roman centurion Cornelius “fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him, Peter lifted him up, saying:‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’”
As to the 260 alleged popes, priest Foy admits:“A number have been unworthy of their high office.” In an attempt to justify this, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:“What mattered for purposes of government was the office, and not the personal character of the individual pope
He may personally have been a saint, a mediocrity, or even a scoundrel.” But do you believe that Christ would use such men to represent him?
At any rate, the assertion that the papacy was founded by Jesus is simply not supported in the Bible.
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.”
The inspired Scriptures, including the two letters written by Peter, make no mention of his going to Rome. Paul speaks of being in Rome but never refers to Peter’s being there.
Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter?
Simply because Peter was never there! The “Babylon” from which Peter wrote his first letter was evidently the literal Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia.
<quoted text>
When you do not have an answer just divert the conversation another direction. Very common Roman move. Your priest has trained you well little grasshopper.
OldJG said, quote, "According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.” End quote.
What now little grasshopper? Will you hop away into oblivion like a good little Roman should? Hop hop now little grasshopper. Hop hop!
It can be difficult to step into an argument with a fundie. For starters, you're requiring us to argue from a false position, that sola Scriptura is a truth. It is not. The Catholic does a phenomenal job using only verse verse verse, when we dont even view the Bible like that. We still destroy the fundie position debating on their own turf. Then, when reason and logic are introduced, the fundie grows hateful because even you know u lost the
argument.

The Book of Wisdom a Roman Catholic forgery? Wow. Who's doing the hop hop n hopping! Lol
truth

Perth, Australia

#530266 Apr 19, 2014
corupt lustful authority
evil serve evilllll

o don't worry they will past away too

where they going
when they died everything died with them

with jesus christ nothing died

they liked be rich and famous and with pride and with corrupt diploma and with great speech

in reality they not listen themself who they are after all
nobody nothing from nowhere 000
they liked zerooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo

golden light is there=death experience

i am alive=dusa je besmrtna

5 truthful truth

1.only is one god
father son holy spirit
2. god created everything keep everything
3.soul of people are alive
4.INRI who died to save you
5.god give you gift, but my accusers will be find in enternity as they deserve
Shockalocka

Greenville, VA

#530267 Apr 19, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>....Currently only 17% of the entire world population are catholics, and the vast majority of those catholics don't practice their faith as REQUIRED dropping devout catholics to single digits.

....Catholics blame me for posting these facts....because they don't want to know these facts.
Or look at it as almost 2 billion people are Catholics.
truth

Perth, Australia

#530268 Apr 19, 2014
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#530269 Apr 19, 2014
OldJG wrote:
Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”(1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter,“Babylon,” was the literal place by that name.
Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.
As to the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, there is no proof that he even visited that city. In fact, Peter himself states that he wrote his first letter from Babylon. The Catholic argument that Peter used “Babylon” as a cryptic reference to Rome is groundless.
The real Babylon existed in Peter’s day. Furthermore, Babylon had a sizable Jewish community. Since Jesus assigned Peter to concentrate his preaching on the circumcised Jews, it is altogether reasonable to believe that Peter visited Babylon for this purpose.
Peter never referred to himself as anything more than one of Christ’s apostles.(2 Peter 1:1) Nowhere in the Bible is he addressed as “Holy Father,”“Supreme Pontiff,” or “Pope”
When Roman centurion Cornelius “fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him, Peter lifted him up, saying:‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’”
As to the 260 alleged popes, priest Foy admits:“A number have been unworthy of their high office.” In an attempt to justify this, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:“What mattered for purposes of government was the office, and not the personal character of the individual pope
He may personally have been a saint, a mediocrity, or even a scoundrel.” But do you believe that Christ would use such men to represent him?
At any rate, the assertion that the papacy was founded by Jesus is simply not supported in the Bible.
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.”
The inspired Scriptures, including the two letters written by Peter, make no mention of his going to Rome. Paul speaks of being in Rome but never refers to Peter’s being there.
Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter?
Simply because Peter was never there! The “Babylon” from which Peter wrote his first letter was evidently the literal Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia.
<quoted text>
When you do not have an answer just divert the conversation another direction. Very common Roman move. Your priest has trained you well little grasshopper.
OldJG said, quote, "According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.” End quote.
What now little grasshopper? Will you hop away into oblivion like a good little Roman should? Hop hop now little grasshopper. Hop hop!
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
It can be difficult to step into an argument with a fundie. For starters, you're requiring us to argue from a false position, that sola Scriptura is a truth. It is not. The Catholic does a phenomenal job using only verse verse verse, when we dont even view the Bible like that. We still destroy the fundie position debating on their own turf. Then, when reason and logic are introduced, the fundie grows hateful because even you know u lost the
argument.
The Book of Wisdom a Roman Catholic forgery? Wow. Who's doing the hop hop n hopping! Lol
It is a Roman forgery without a doubt. There is a reason it is not an "inspired" book in the Bible. End of story. Now hop off little grasshopper. Hop Hop.
Shockalocka

Greenville, VA

#530270 Apr 19, 2014
How come people come out in droves to ridicule Catholics? How come atheist care so much about telling us their side? They always try to make mockery of us and our beliefs, why? What do you gain from this?
The big question is why are they so afraid to tell the same to Muslims? Or any other form of religion for that matter. Cowards maybe or maybe just ignorance of theology and understanding. Majority of Catholics I know are leaders in their communities and contribute to sick and poor. What's wrong with that? I don't understand why others would hate for something that doesn't affect them!
truth

Perth, Australia

#530271 Apr 19, 2014
look there in stars
try count as matemistchiftians
https://www.google.com.au/search...
https://www.google.com.au/search...
truth

Perth, Australia

#530272 Apr 19, 2014
no paul is 13 apostolic

seeeeeeee
24 plus jesus christ=25
look 12 plus jesus=13
25=1/4
truth

Perth, Australia

#530273 Apr 19, 2014
poor atheist they going died
who is rich or not

thennnnnnnnnnnnn

INRI

its golden light on the end
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#530274 Apr 19, 2014
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”(1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter,“Babylon,” was the literal place by that name.
Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.
As to the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, there is no proof that he even visited that city. In fact, Peter himself states that he wrote his first letter from Babylon. The Catholic argument that Peter used “Babylon” as a cryptic reference to Rome is groundless.
The real Babylon existed in Peter’s day. Furthermore, Babylon had a sizable Jewish community. Since Jesus assigned Peter to concentrate his preaching on the circumcised Jews, it is altogether reasonable to believe that Peter visited Babylon for this purpose.
Peter never referred to himself as anything more than one of Christ’s apostles.(2 Peter 1:1) Nowhere in the Bible is he addressed as “Holy Father,”“Supreme Pontiff,” or “Pope”
When Roman centurion Cornelius “fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him, Peter lifted him up, saying:‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’”
As to the 260 alleged popes, priest Foy admits:“A number have been unworthy of their high office.” In an attempt to justify this, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:“What mattered for purposes of government was the office, and not the personal character of the individual pope
He may personally have been a saint, a mediocrity, or even a scoundrel.” But do you believe that Christ would use such men to represent him?
At any rate, the assertion that the papacy was founded by Jesus is simply not supported in the Bible.
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.”
The inspired Scriptures, including the two letters written by Peter, make no mention of his going to Rome. Paul speaks of being in Rome but never refers to Peter’s being there.
Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter?
Simply because Peter was never there! The “Babylon” from which Peter wrote his first letter was evidently the literal Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia.
<quoted text>
When you do not have an answer just divert the conversation another direction. Very common Roman move. Your priest has trained you well little grasshopper.
OldJG said, quote, "According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.” End quote.
What now little grasshopper? Will you hop away into oblivion like a good little Roman should? Hop hop now little grasshopper. Hop hop!
<quoted text>
It is a Roman forgery without a doubt. There is a reason it is not an "inspired" book in the Bible. End of story. Now hop off little grasshopper. Hop Hop.
“there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.”

There is no direct biblical proof of OSAS or sola scriptura, but you follow it anyway.

There is proof of the papacy in the historical writings of the first Christians who were taught by the apostles.

There is NO proof of OSAS or sola scriptura in the historical writings of the first Christians who were taught by the apostles.

Case closed.

Hey Deacon Cluck Cluck Cluck, how do non-Christian Romans get saved?
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#530275 Apr 19, 2014
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”(1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter,“Babylon,” was the literal place by that name.
Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.
As to the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, there is no proof that he even visited that city. In fact, Peter himself states that he wrote his first letter from Babylon. The Catholic argument that Peter used “Babylon” as a cryptic reference to Rome is groundless.
The real Babylon existed in Peter’s day. Furthermore, Babylon had a sizable Jewish community. Since Jesus assigned Peter to concentrate his preaching on the circumcised Jews, it is altogether reasonable to believe that Peter visited Babylon for this purpose.
Peter never referred to himself as anything more than one of Christ’s apostles.(2 Peter 1:1) Nowhere in the Bible is he addressed as “Holy Father,”“Supreme Pontiff,” or “Pope”
When Roman centurion Cornelius “fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him, Peter lifted him up, saying:‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’”
As to the 260 alleged popes, priest Foy admits:“A number have been unworthy of their high office.” In an attempt to justify this, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:“What mattered for purposes of government was the office, and not the personal character of the individual pope
He may personally have been a saint, a mediocrity, or even a scoundrel.” But do you believe that Christ would use such men to represent him?
At any rate, the assertion that the papacy was founded by Jesus is simply not supported in the Bible.
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.”
The inspired Scriptures, including the two letters written by Peter, make no mention of his going to Rome. Paul speaks of being in Rome but never refers to Peter’s being there.
Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter?
Simply because Peter was never there! The “Babylon” from which Peter wrote his first letter was evidently the literal Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia.
<quoted text>
When you do not have an answer just divert the conversation another direction. Very common Roman move. Your priest has trained you well little grasshopper.
OldJG said, quote, "According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, even modern Catholic scholars concede that “there is no direct biblical proof that Jesus established the papacy as a permanent office within the church.” End quote.
What now little grasshopper? Will you hop away into oblivion like a good little Roman should? Hop hop now little grasshopper. Hop hop!
<quoted text>
It is a Roman forgery without a doubt. There is a reason it is not an "inspired" book in the Bible. End of story. Now hop off little grasshopper. Hop Hop.
Is this a case of your usual talking out of your behind or do you have something to back it up for once?
truth

Perth, Australia

#530276 Apr 19, 2014
https://www.google.com.au/search...
https://www.google.com.au/search...
as swiss o'clock correct

shut up

nobody care what you think

its written before
where here here there there
where

in within

what a shame from you
my mind is not your

i am not thinking like you

how you can be accuser
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#530277 Apr 19, 2014
OldJG wrote:
One of the most popular arguments Catholic apologists use against evangelicalism is to claim that since some of the earliest lists of the New Testament canon come from councils, and those councils were held by Roman Catholic church leaders, then evangelicals must rely on Roman Catholic councils in order to know the canon of scripture. This argument, though popular, is highly problematic.
To begin with, the scriptures are self-witnessing (John 10:4, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 4:12), meaning that people can be convicted of their truthfulness apart from the ruling of a church hierarchy. Even from a historical perspective, do evangelicals need to rely on Roman Catholic councils in order to know the canon? No, they don't. Many people recognized the Divine inspiration of the New Testament books before any of the fourth century councils cited by Catholic apologists. The church father Athanasius listed the entire New Testament canon, as we have it today, about 30 years before the council of Carthage, which is so often said to have established the canon. It's important to realize that these councils, which had only regional authority, didn't determine the canon. Instead, they reflect a consensus that existed before the councils were held. The councils reflected a consensus rather than creating one. And the councils weren't even Roman Catholic anyway. It was after these councils that such influential men as Augustine and Rufinus were still referring to the regional authority of the Roman church even in the West. And the canon of the council of Carthage isn't the same as that of Roman Catholicism. Apparently, the council accepted the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, which is a different book than the Vulgate book of the same name, and it was the Vulgate version of 1 Esdras that was canonized by Roman Catholicism.
The first councils to list the New Testament canon as we have it today were regional, were not Roman Catholic, and reflected a consensus that already existed rather than creating a consensus with their rulings. It's common for Catholic apologists to refer to a council as something that represents the authority of Roman Catholicism and to refer to a decision of a bishop of Rome as though it was something that every church worldwide obeyed. Councils that were convened by a Roman emperor or somebody else outside of the Roman church are portrayed as Roman Catholic councils that were led by a Pope. Decrees issued by a Roman bishop, which had only regional authority, are portrayed as decrees issued to and obeyed by every church worldwide. Don't be deceived by such revisionism. The churches of the earliest centuries didn't operate as the Roman Catholic Church operates today. Catholic apologists just assume that something a bishop or council did in the past is an example of the Roman Catholic Church doing something. But it's fallacious to assume that every one of these bishops or councils of the past was Roman Catholic.
Jason Engwer has been thoroughly destroyed each and every time he's debated a Catholic apologist. Have fun hitching your wagon to him. lol.
marge

Ames, IA

#530278 Apr 19, 2014
The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deutero...
truth

Perth, Australia

#530279 Apr 19, 2014
who created you
look your hands
you have seal letter on each hand
spit over-yourself
i am not care
mr and mrs prideful famous rich accusers

spitttttttttttt over your creator and yourselfffffffffffffffffffff
spittttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttt
serve your evil
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#530280 Apr 19, 2014
marge wrote:
The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deutero...
Hey marge, did you forget about me? Does it surprise you to know Sean Hannity is a devout Catholic?

Jesus's bible was the Septuagint. Do you know it had those books you say are not the Word of God? You better get on the phone with Jesus and correct Him.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#530281 Apr 19, 2014
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm grateful anytime there is,a venue for talking about Jesus,and what He,suffered...who among us,knows,how a,seed will be planted and nurtured by the Holy Spirit.
The,Romans,were,cruel ...torturers are,cruel...history shows this..By His,STRIPES,we,are heLped, but it WAS a,hard movie to watch. I agree ...but we,don't know,how,God,will use,it
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed...

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
Evolution vs. Creationism (Mar '12) 4 min paul porter 838
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min River Tam 809,019
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 15 min Justice League 942
Why Do I Waste My Time on Topix?????? 21 min Lumajuice 23
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr MUQ2 39,597
Moses never existed 2 hr River Tam 1,253
Never trust an American woman; they are all lia... (Jul '08) 3 hr Silk 125
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 3 hr hehehe7385 17
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr Black Thunder 42 608,134
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 hr Ice-9 268,804
How do I ask my dad for sex? (Oct '13) Sat Mille1234 93
More from around the web