Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 703878 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.

ReginaM

Chadds Ford, PA

#202792 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
ReginaM: i haven't forgotten about looking up about the popes who have sinned,but there is not much to find,apparently the church is keeping it under tight lock an key,now if you look up popes who were considered the opposite,pope gregory is very popular saw his name on a lot of sites, you find more info than you need,but I'll keep looking.
Oh, they're keeping it under lock and key, huh? LOL I don't think so, Jethro. I thought you said you found all this dirt on New Advent. When I went to check, none of it was there. So what gives? You posted a lot of derogatory statements, where did they come from?

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202794 Jun 30, 2010
Justified 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus is fully man and fully God my friend. That's how.
doesn't answer the second part of my question.is the church spiritual only???

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202795 Jun 30, 2010
RealSheryl wrote:
<quoted text>
Jethro8 - Now you're talkin'. True church IS spiritual.
how can it really be proven?

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202796 Jun 30, 2010
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, they're keeping it under lock and key, huh? LOL I don't think so, Jethro. I thought you said you found all this dirt on New Advent. When I went to check, none of it was there. So what gives? You posted a lot of derogatory statements, where did they come from?
that site only went so far,if you wanted more info you had to buy a dvd,which I'm not.
hojo

Ridgecrest, CA

#202797 Jun 30, 2010
Justified 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Hojo; 21st Century to you is going to the "original language"? This 21st Cent apologist went "back" to the original language. The views of Rome on that passage do not match the original. Also; I have used Church Fathers quotes on Mt 16:18 to show what they seen as the understanding of that passage. Both avenues of research refutes Rome's claims. Do I see the Roman Church as a whole not a Christian body? No. I see it the same way I see other churches...some with true professions of faith in Christ; and some not so. Some believe because they were baptized as a baby; they are all good; not so. Some believe because they have Christian parents and a good upbringing that they are ok; not so. Some believe because they go to church every sunday and for some strange reason believe they are doing God the favor that they are ok; not so. It is for those who make the profession of faith as St. Peter did that constitute the Church at large. This; and only this is the "true Church".
As far as I am concerned, your Protestant "fly-by-night" anti-catholic theologian writers could have surfaced ANYTIME after the Reformation in 1570 A.D.(In the 17th, 18th 19th 20th or 21st centuries--it really doesn't matter) and still come up with the same distorted,slanted,negative, undermining, and false conclusions regarding the History,doctrine and teachings of the Catholic Church. You,J, Dan Dougherty, Jack Chick and the likes of you, continue to live in a "solo scriptura" world, that is based upon "personal opinion" where your polemics against the church are not only spiritually but intellectually "groundless". As a convert to Catholicism , I am quite familiar with this continuing, on-going Protestant "confusion, chaos,bias and disorientation of the TRUTH of Jesus Christ's One True Apostolic Catholic Church. My best advice to you "J", is that if you persist in arguing and rejecting the Historical TRUTH of the Catholic Church, then go and live your "solo scriptura Christianity, the faith that you so strongly believe in. You are certainly free to live and grow in your commitment to Jesus Christ and---therefore--- stop wasting ours and your own time rehashing, resurrect and interjecting your own personal theological opinions and conclusions over and over and over again, which HAVE NO BASIS OF HISTORICAL TRUTH OR FACT, IN ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE ANY OF US,WHO ARE CHRIST CENTERED CATHOLICS, TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER.--- NONE OF US ARE BUYING WHAT YOU ARE SELLING!

Since: May 08

Belle Mead, NJ

#202798 Jun 30, 2010
lnigo Montoya wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter?
Which begs the question, why did Jesus change Saul's name to Paul?
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#202799 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>we pretty much have total chaos going on right now thanks to the stupidity of man kind.
True Jethro, but what is going on now is just the beginning of sorrow Jesus speaks about in Matthew 24 :8 [or birth pains].
Its going to get alot worse Jethro much much worse.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#202800 Jun 30, 2010
Justified 7 wrote:
Going to a Bible study now at "Church".:) Blessings jethro; and love you my friend.
Let me know what the study was on J7 please. Blessings to you

Since: May 08

Belle Mead, NJ

#202801 Jun 30, 2010
lnigo Montoya wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry for the delayed response...
I honestly don't know what the church's or church father's positions are concerning premillenialism, so I can't help you there.
The intent behind my initial response was simple - if I recall correctly, you provided some quotes which you used as evidence that Cyril did not support the papacy (or was it specific to Matthew 16:18), and I showed you that Cyril did actually support the papacy. Here are Cyril's quotes again:
"Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles"
"It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven" (note that this is a continuation of the quote that you give above regarding "the noble pair" of Peter and Paul)
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven"
So are we agreed that we can take Cyril of Jerusalem off the list of those who did not support Peter's primacy?
Peace
Above you see exactly the point that I keep trying to make.

You wrote to B7:
"I showed you that Cyril did actually support the papacy."

Then you provided the following:
"Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles"
"It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven" (note that this is a continuation of the quote that you give above regarding "the noble pair" of Peter and Paul)
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven"

OK, all of that has to do with St. Peter.

But where does it say that St. Cyril supported the papacy?

NO WHERE.

Then you add:
"So are we agreed that we can take Cyril of Jerusalem off the list of those who did not support Peter's primacy?"

No one denies that St. Peter held a primacy within the Church and amongst the Apostles.

That is what St. Cyril was saying and he was correct in what he said.

However, what in heaven's name does that has to do with the papacy?

Nothing.

Did St. Cyril think that "the rock" was Christ or did he think it was St. Peter?

Would your proof texts mean anything else if St. Cyril thought that "the Rock" was not St. Peter? No.

Just don't confuse yourself by seeing "pope" every time you see "St. Peter".

The Church never did.
charts1

Hamilton, Canada

#202802 Jun 30, 2010
WGAC wrote:
<quoted text>
You are entitled to your opinion, but you cannot state as fact that God does not exist until you can find a way to disprove His existence. It is unfair for you to judge others harshly because they have faith in something that you, by your personal opinion, do not believe in.
I can't state that god does not exist. You can't prove a negative.

I am not saying there is no god, I don't believe the divine jesus stories, and the other tall tales and contradictions in the bible. Remember christians state that the bible (the whole bible) is the inspired words of god, not just the passages you pick and choose that make only sense to you. I dig a little deeper and post passages that make no sense at all, and want logical answers to them. We should all want answers. The bible should be crystal clear to all christians as to the meanings and messages within. Everyone should be on the same page, but we are not even close. As you can see most everyone on this forum has their own egotistical belief that they are right in their understandings of the bible and other posters on this forum are not.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#202803 Jun 30, 2010
charts1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What archeological evidence from 4 BCE to 30 AD do you speak of?
My point is this.
We were taught that just over 2000 years ago a man/god named jesus tripped around jerusulem with an enterouage of 12 men performing miracles for thousands and witnessed by many more. A man supposedly brought back from the dead, another made to see again, turned water into wine to make many happy and he made food multiply to feed 5,000 people loaves fishes. EVERYONE of these people would be very grateful for his miraclous powers that helped them and all that witnessed these feats would be totally impressed. I would! The story goes that a short time later this man jesus rode into jerusulem on a donkey and the entire crowd threw palm leaves down as a thumbs up to him. Now the story gets cloudy. We are taught a short time later jesus gets caught up in some government red tape of a serious nature and the crowds of people whom must have been supporters of jesus have a choice to make to crucifiy one of two men. The crowd screams jesus. But why? Aren't these the people who he miraclized? Doesn't make sense. Did these miracles really take place or was he a David Copperfield ahead of his time? There is nothing in the story that indicates that he died for our sins. He died because the crowd chose him to die not Barabas. How would christianity have unfolded if the crowd screamed Barabas and there was no crucifiction of a man named jesus? Makes one wonder.
If the 12 apostles were best friends of jesus and they witnessed these miracles and BELIEVED IN HIM why were they in hiding as the story of the crucificition is told?
There were dozens of hebrew and roman writers of the day in jerusulem and they recorded daily events. NOT one event do we have of this miracle worker jesus. Personal and government writings by Pontious Pilate, yet nothing about a crucifiction of a jesus. Nothing recorded by anyone. For this man from the day he was born the story tells us was brought 3 gifts by Kings, performed miracles, christians call him the greatest man that ever lived yet no one at the time thought he was important enough to write anything about him, not even a description of what he looked like. NOTHING! Something is wrong!
Yes I would love to believe in a divine jesus, but total lack of contemporary evidence makes me believe otherwise.
Just my personal opinion.....
Ok Doubting Thomas, Christians live by faith not by sight, or it wouldn't be faith now would it.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#202804 Jun 30, 2010
charts1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What archeological evidence from 4 BCE to 30 AD do you speak of?
My point is this.
We were taught that just over 2000 years ago a man/god named jesus tripped around jerusulem with an enterouage of 12 men performing miracles for thousands and witnessed by many more. A man supposedly brought back from the dead, another made to see again, turned water into wine to make many happy and he made food multiply to feed 5,000 people loaves fishes. impressed. I would! The story goes that a short time later this man jesus rode into jerusulem on a donkey and the entire crowd threw palm leaves down as a thumbs up to him. Now the story gets cloudy. We are taught a short time later jesus gets caught up in some government red tape of a serious nature and the crowds of people whom must have been supporters of jesus have a choice to make to crucifiy one of two men. The crowd screams jesus. If the 12 apostles were best friends of jesus and they witnessed these miracles and BELIEVED IN HIM why were they in hiding as the story of the crucificition is told?
There were dozens of hebrew and roman writers of the day in jerusulem and they recorded daily events. NOT one event do we have of this miracle worker jesus. Personal and government writings by Pontious Pilate, yet nothing about a crucifiction of a jesus. Nothing recorded by anyone. For this man from the day he was born the story tells us was brought 3 gifts by Kings, performed miracles, christians call him the greatest man that ever lived yet no one at the time thought he was important enough to write anything about him, not even a description of what he looked like. NOTHING! Something is wrong!
Yes I would love to believe in a divine jesus, but total lack of contemporary evidence makes me believe otherwise.
Just my personal opinion.....
The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly translated to mean "universal".
There is no question that the man Jesus did in fact exist and that his followers were loyal and that he was killed in much the way described
Muslims also believe in a man named Jesus who was born to a virgin Mary but they believe Him to be a prophet, not the son of God.
Its in the Muslim Quran
JESUS is alive with god (Koran 3,55;4,158,159)
Muhammad is dead and buried in Medina AWAITING JUDGMENT
'The Prophet said,'''By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me'''(Hadith vol. 5, no. 266).
Islam's prophet, Muhammad, believed Jesus was the Messiah, Allah's anointed messenger. Allah's people (Muslims) are told to listen to Allah's messengers (Koran, 4.171; 5. 111*)..
Allah took Jesus to heaven where he awaits until the day of judgment when he will return to earth (3,55). Muslim traditions teach that Muhammad died not knowing if he would be judged worthy to enter Paradise - where God has already placed Jesus. Muhammad is Dead and buried in Saudi Arabia. Jesus is alive both with God in heaven (paradise) and in Spirit with his followers on Earth.(Koran 3,55;4,158,159)
This is the great difference between Jesus and Muhammad according to the Quran/Koran. Jesus is alive in Heaven with God and Muhammad is dead and buried. IN MEDINA, SAUDI ARABIA, STILL AWAITING GOD'S JUDGMENT.
charts1

Hamilton, Canada

#202805 Jun 30, 2010
Brother Jim wrote:
<quoted text> Thats a very funny reply and I agree with it, there doesnt seem to be much there to expand, rubber will only stretch so far before it rips apart.
Brother jim says that is a very funny reply. GOOD for you brother jim. Good boy.
charts1

Hamilton, Canada

#202806 Jun 30, 2010
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Doubting Thomas, Christians live by faith not by sight, or it wouldn't be faith now would it.
NO, No, No! I don't have to see something to believe it. It just has to make common sense and be logical. Seeing something sure helps the credability wouldn't ya' say. I can't see gravity, but I know its proven to be there. We can't see the air we breathe, but again, we know for sure its there.

Most religious people live by indoctrination from childhood. You didn't find the faith yourself, your parents instilled it into you. If your parents were catholic or jewish or hindu, there is a very good chance your faith will be based on THEIR belief not your own personal faith. The faith you have is the indoctrination you inherited from your parents family tradition.

LTM, if you and I were born in Jamaica, Rastafari would probably be OUR SAVIOR LTM, and we would be on another forum spreading his good word, and calling ALL OTHER BELIEVERS DOUBTING THOMASES, or DOUBTING RASTAFARIS Right?.... RIGHT!
ReginaM

Chadds Ford, PA

#202807 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>that site only went so far,if you wanted more info you had to buy a dvd,which I'm not.
Then where did you get the derogatory statements from?
marge

United States

#202808 Jun 30, 2010
John from NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Which begs the question, why did Jesus change Saul's name to Paul?
Just already answered, they were born-again, a new creation in Christ Jesus.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#202809 Jun 30, 2010
Justified 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Please tell me he didn't plagiarize again sis?
Uh huh.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#202810 Jun 30, 2010
charts1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't state that god does not exist. You can't prove a negative.
I am not saying there is no god, I don't believe the divine jesus stories, and the other tall tales and contradictions in the bible. Remember christians state that the bible (the whole bible) is the inspired words of god, not just the passages you pick and choose that make only sense to you. I dig a little deeper and post passages that make no sense at all, and want logical answers to them. We should all want answers. The bible should be crystal clear to all christians as to the meanings and messages within. Everyone should be on the same page, but we are not even close. As you can see most everyone on this forum has their own egotistical belief that they are right in their understandings of the bible and other posters on this forum are not.
Well I can sure see why you are confused Chart 1. We are a confusing bunch for sure, sorry about that. Revelation of Gods word should not be confusing, it should be recieved and enjoyed with love. Gods word isn't to condemn you its to convict a sinner of their sins, condemnation comes from believing the devils lies.
Just think of it this way, your creator loves you so much, and to prove His love for you He gave His Son Jesus to die for your sins.
People think God puts people in hell He doesn't people put themselves there, because hey refuse to accept His gift of eternal life His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior. I could go on forever telling you how wonderful Jesus is there is no one else I rather talk about 24-7, but I will never beable to convince you that Jesus is real. Jesus said it Himself no one can come to him less the Father draws them. So I am going to start praying for you Chart 1. I am going to ask God now to remove the spirit of confussion, and doubt from you. Thank you Lord, in Jesus name Amen.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#202811 Jun 30, 2010
John from NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Above you see exactly the point that I keep trying to make.
You wrote to B7:
"I showed you that Cyril did actually support the papacy."
Then you provided the following:
"Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles"
"It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven" (note that this is a continuation of the quote that you give above regarding "the noble pair" of Peter and Paul)
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven"
OK, all of that has to do with St. Peter.
But where does it say that St. Cyril supported the papacy?
NO WHERE.
Then you add:
"So are we agreed that we can take Cyril of Jerusalem off the list of those who did not support Peter's primacy?"
No one denies that St. Peter held a primacy within the Church and amongst the Apostles.
That is what St. Cyril was saying and he was correct in what he said.
However, what in heaven's name does that has to do with the papacy?
Nothing.
Did St. Cyril think that "the rock" was Christ or did he think it was St. Peter?
Would your proof texts mean anything else if St. Cyril thought that "the Rock" was not St. Peter? No.
Just don't confuse yourself by seeing "pope" every time you see "St. Peter".
The Church never did.
You make some good points, John from NJ. Just so I'm clear, there appear to be three issues here - 1) Primacy of Peter among the apostles, 2) Authority of Peter as evidenced by the keys, and 3) Succession of Peter, creating a papacy. Points 1 and 2 are similar and, if I read you correctly, are no brainers based on scripture and the church fathers. But it is point 3 that is in question.

Do I have this correct?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#202812 Jun 30, 2010
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Just already answered, they were born-again, a new creation in Christ Jesus.
Hello, marge.

If this is so, why didn't everyone get new names? At least all of the apostles should have, no?

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 hr Kwisatz Haderach 88,638
How to a approach a top foreign dating coach? 6 hr ramon40 1
News US may never see another spiritual leader like ... 6 hr Rocky 15
New girl reminds me too much of ex gf 6 hr carlvei3 1
The REAL reason TWA Flight 800 broke in half 7 hr Doctor REALITY 9
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 hr BongoKrap 996,575
Poll Have you ever secretly sniffed a woman's panties (Apr '09) 8 hr Joseph8 36