Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 703824 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.

June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551155 Jul 23, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL
Peace
You have taken what are spiritual virtues, and tried to reduce them to observable phenomena.
Hahahahahaha
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551156 Jul 23, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't mean to step in
Fibber!

You are here to assure us that both Jesus and God admire ONLY your Catholic doctrines.

Jesus the Jewish rabbi ... preaching universal truth in a Catholic church at faithful Catholics.

Hilarious visionary hallucinations!
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551157 Jul 23, 2014
If those who are in religion are not supposed to put their faith in men ... what does that mean other than the thoughts of men that write religious literature are not dependable. Just because they brag that they know universal truth does not mean that you should put your faith in those words.

You might believe that you are on a divine path ... but you could be totally wrong ... couldn't you???
USA Born

Claremont, CA

#551158 Jul 23, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't mean to step in......but whats not confusing is that there WAS a lineage. Like I said yesterday, it was a time of great persecution of the Church. record keeping must have been the furthest thing from their minds. To have a man like
Ireneus - who new the men who knew the Apostles personally, document that Peter and Paul died in Rome, and then named the succeeding Bishops..... I mean, come on. What more do you want. What happened to Christianity for 1600 yrs?
Like I said yesterday, the apostles were hunted and still managed to write.

Irenaeus (/a&#618;r&#601;&# 712;ni&#720;&#601;s/; Greek: &#917;&#7984;&#961 ;&#951;&#957;&#945 ;&#8150;&#959;&#96 2;)(early 2nd century – c. AD 202), also referred to as Saint Irenaeus, was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyon, France). He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp,[1] who in turn was traditionally a disciple of John the Evangelist.

There is no historical evidence again. Can you understand that "tradition" does not equal truth. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe, I'm just saying tradition is just tradition.
USA Born

Claremont, CA

#551159 Jul 23, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Believing the scriptures is.......
Believing in Jesus Christ who is the Word of God......
I agree. Nothing should stop us from reading and studying the Words of God and Christ.
Liam

Garden City, MI

#551160 Jul 23, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said yesterday, the apostles were hunted and still managed to write.
Irenaeus (/a&#618;r&#601;&# 712;ni&#720;&#601;s/; Greek: &#917;&#7984;&#961 ;&#951;&#957;&#945 ;&#8150;&#959;&#96 2;)(early 2nd century – c. AD 202), also referred to as Saint Irenaeus, was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyon, France). He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp,[1] who in turn was traditionally a disciple of John the Evangelist.
There is no historical evidence again. Can you understand that "tradition" does not equal truth. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe, I'm just saying tradition is just tradition.
Give me historical evidence that the Book of Hebrews was written by one of the Apostles. You see, you can't ignore writings from the Disciples of the Apostles, for "lack of historical evidence", yet at the same time, accept Hebrews, Revelation, James.....but not
The epistle of Barnabas, gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdalene.
Btw, I think you're a good Christian and don't doubt your love for the Lord. I appreciate your friendly arguments.
Just Sayin

United States

#551161 Jul 23, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
It was established by men who wrote the Jesus MYTH.
I suggest you should stop fantasizing that a Jew is smitten with YOU.
Jesus loves everyone, including you.
Just Sayin

United States

#551162 Jul 23, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
First and foremost, the Pope declaring the CC as the only true church.
The Bible clearly says Paul took the gospel to the gentiles. Pauls also said that he does not build on another man's foundation. IMO, that would include the foundation the RCC claims Peter built.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...
The Apostolic Constitutions[10] says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and the others cited above who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.
Why so much confusion about the lineage. This is only an example
Both Peter and Paul taught the same gospel, right? I'm not sure what the issue is. And I don't see "so much confusion" about the pope lineage. Could you clarify?.
Just Sayin

United States

#551163 Jul 23, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
First and foremost, the Pope declaring the CC as the only true church.
The Bible clearly says Paul took the gospel to the gentiles. Pauls also said that he does not build on another man's foundation. IMO, that would include the foundation the RCC claims Peter built.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...
The Apostolic Constitutions[10] says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and the others cited above who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.
Why so much confusion about the lineage. This is only an example
You are right, God is not the author of confusion. But look what happened after the Reformation.
USA Born

Claremont, CA

#551164 Jul 23, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me historical evidence that the Book of Hebrews was written by one of the Apostles. You see, you can't ignore writings from the Disciples of the Apostles, for "lack of historical evidence", yet at the same time, accept Hebrews, Revelation, James.....but not
The epistle of Barnabas, gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdalene.
Btw, I think you're a good Christian and don't doubt your love for the Lord. I appreciate your friendly arguments.
I've given you historical evidence but you do not believe Flavius Josephus has credibilty.

Your universal church and lineage cannot be proven in scripture or history.

The gnostics were written between the 2d and 4th century. They are not in the KJV because they are not credible as Holy Scripture.

I believe you are also a good Christian who loves the Lord.

Does the Catholic Bible include the epistle and Gospels you mentioned?

The Epistle of Barnabus

Origin

The first editor of the epistle, Hugo Menardus (1645) advocated the genuineness of its ascription to Barnabas, but the opinion today is that Barnabas was not the author. It was probably written between the years 70 – 131 and addressed to Christian Gentiles. In 16.3–4, the Epistle reads:

"Furthermore he says again,'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it."

This passage clearly places Barnabas after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. The document must come from the period between the two revolts. The place of origin remains an open question, although the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean appears most probable (Treat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barna...
Just Sayin

United States

#551165 Jul 23, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
...If I wanted to belong to a well established club or association but made it clear I wasn't going to follow the rules that I didn't like, the club authority would make it clear that my membership would be revoked.
...The Catholic church has no structure in place of who or how many are divorced, who are not following other rules of church authority. Its a church in chaos. Its a free for-all.
.
You had said no divorce for sacramental marriages. First you are right to distinguish between sacramental and civil marriage. The Christian marriage as the CC sees it is indissoluble. The couple can get a civil divorce to deprecate and distribute shared property, but remarriage is Adultery. There are certain qualifications to be met before a marriage is sacramental. Civil marriages are a different animal. The CC treats all marriages as sacramental until proven otherwise. Therefor, if one is divorced but seeks to be remarried in the CC, they must go through a process, an investigation to see if the previous marriage was sacramental. If it is proven not to have been, then an annulment is granted. Which does not change anything about that marriage, but merely states what is already true.

Unfortunately, some marriages become so unhealthy that one spouse must flee for their safety. While the CC sees this as a very sad thing, and divorce a sin, because it causes so much pain, the CC points to God's healing powers and forgiveness.
The CC does not keep numbers on who is married, who has a happy marriage or a terrible marriage, or who is divorced, or separated, or who has a civil marriage and who has a sacramental marriage. The only time the church says anything is when someone wants to get married in the CC.

I must add that Her teachings are that taking Eucharist/Communion in a state of grave sin is a huge sin, and one eats and drinks condemnation upon ones own head. However She does not grill people before Mass.
Just Sayin

United States

#551166 Jul 23, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
...If I wanted to belong to a well established club or association but made it clear I wasn't going to follow the rules that I didn't like, the club authority would make it clear that my membership would be revoked.
...The Catholic church has no structure in place of who or how many are divorced, who are not following other rules of church authority. Its a church in chaos. Its a free for-all.
.
I forgot to add that occasionally, a bishop must publicly announce that someone (I.e. a pro abortion politician who claims to be Catholic) is excommunicated. This is not kicking them out of the Church, but merely stating a fact. Such a person is denied the Eucharist out of respect for Jesus and out of concern for that persons soul.
failure of Science

Baltimore, MD

#551167 Jul 23, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is materialism "random chaos"? Where did you get that idea from?
let me help you why materlialistic things and materliasm is random chaos and nonsense,
take only one simple understandable by you example
Our computers material design from 1980 till today,such material mess and chaos is not able to fit each computer year by year, from Lotus 1,2,3 till new every year windows out of date,all out of dates are trush,junk not able completly to be destroy<
such science chaos create complete nonsense and atheism and moral failure that humans are not able to escape from their own made for yourselves trap,and not able to survive even one simple disaster- cut off global energy supply= end of mankind who create chaos and misery for yourselves
understood Boo Boo?

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#551168 Jul 23, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me historical evidence that the Book of Hebrews was written by one of the Apostles. You see, you can't ignore writings from the Disciples of the Apostles, for "lack of historical evidence", yet at the same time, accept Hebrews, Revelation, James.....but not
The epistle of Barnabas, gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdalene.
Btw, I think you're a good Christian and don't doubt your love for the Lord. I appreciate your friendly arguments.
You believe the gospel of Thomas? Isn't that the Gnostic writing?? Just curious
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#551169 Jul 23, 2014
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, God is not the author of confusion. But look what happened after the Reformation.
Message of Reformation is not the message that began with Martin Luther but with Jesus Christ, the first true reformer.

Confusion hinders the work of conversion of the soul....is thy heart right with God?

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#551170 Jul 23, 2014
Did they change the format on here with going from page to pAge or is this just my tablet ..weird
Just Sayin

United States

#551171 Jul 23, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Message of Reformation is not the message that began with Martin Luther but with Jesus Christ, the first true reformer.
Confusion hinders the work of conversion of the soul....is thy heart right with God?
So are you saying that Luther picked up where Jesus left off?
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#551172 Jul 23, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
First and foremost, the Pope declaring the CC as the only true church.
The Bible clearly says Paul took the gospel to the gentiles. Pauls also said that he does not build on another man's foundation. IMO, that would include the foundation the RCC claims Peter built.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...
The Apostolic Constitutions[10] says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and the others cited above who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.
Why so much confusion about the lineage. This is only an example
Jesus' church (the New Testament Church) was built on Peter's confession.......confession of faith in Jesus Christ....
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#551173 Jul 23, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't know what interpretation is correct because you don't read the Bible. It's how church leaders keep their lies and legends goiing . People like you will suck down anything if it somehow proves them superior. Your anti-scripture, ritual only beliefs have left you ignorant and judgemental of anyone who dares to read and study the scriptures. People like you will always feel the need to be superior to others in some form or another.
There is actually less than 42,000 non catholic denominations. But who cares. It does not mean that all these different denominations do not agree that.
Matthew 16:16 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
No rituals or traditions needed.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jesus' church was built on Peter's confession of faith in Jesus Christ..........

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#551174 Jul 23, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Hidingfromyou
I gave you an either/or situation, one in which the world is symmetric(super), or chaotic.
A materialist depends on matter, and matter is made up of atoms, protons, the basic standard model with the discovery of the Higgs particle, with its approximate weight.
Although theoretical physics more or less is at a crossroads between supersymmetry and chaos as the basis of matter, I was interested in which direction you lean?
Of course there is always a third unknown in this.....
I haven't formed an opinion with regards to speculative physics. I simply don't know enough in the matter.

Here's the thing, though. Energy organizes into matter, matter organizes further as it cools, properties come out depending on atomic structure, which becomes more organized when combined into molecules, and so on. The physics of the universe is both unpredictable (what you're calling chaotic) and organized via whatever rules of math it follows.

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) 15 min Redeemed Jersey P... 996,561
Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University Hal... 26 min Case File 1
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 44 min Grunt56 223,082
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 53 min science is god 88,515
Are women from USA scared of marriage? 6 hr stupdwmen 20
Are Ukraine women naturally prideful? 6 hr stupdwmen 4
I'm making a dating blog. Any advice? 6 hr stupdwmen 3