Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 646335 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.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#202779 Jun 30, 2010
Inigo Montoya wrote:
<quoted text>Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter?
Justified 7 wrote:
Hopefully my formatting worked....

Ok, so we see from this website that God sometimes changed names to establish a new identity. What was Peter's new identity? And, by the way, I'm not necessarily going anywhere with this. It just occurred to me that I've never heard from a non-Catholic Christian why this was done or what the significance of this event was. I mean, it MUST be significant because he received the keys of authority right after this. But I wonder what a non-Catholic thinks is the significance of this.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202780 Jun 30, 2010
Justified 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Christian Church and church (Greek kyriakon (&#954;&#965;&#961 ;&#953;&#945;&#954 ;&#972;&#957;), "thing belonging to the Lord"; also ekklesia (&#7952;&#954;&#95 4;&#955;&#951;&#96 3;&#943;&#945;)(Latini zed as ecclesia, "assembly") are used to denote both a >>Christian association of people<< and a >>place of worship<<. In the phenomenological sense there are many such associations of people that call themselves Christian churches. >>In the New Testament<< the term &#7952;&#954;&#954 ;&#955;&#951;&#963 ;&#943;&#945; (church or assembly) is used for >>local communities<< and in a >>universal sense<< to mean >>all believers<<.[1] Since heresy is seen as separating from the church, the phrase "all believers" is ambiguous, and churches such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church hold that that those who, though called Christians, are out of communion with them are not, in the full sense, part of the Christian church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church
**I believe it is both. Visible and Invisible
--//--
Now; I'm sure all of us can go and pick out areas of that article that seem to support each others views; but think of it this way Jethro; did you see Jesus proclaiming a particular denomination; or the plan of salvation? Certainly if it were so important; it would have been included in the "inspired" text of the Bible.
Mat 18:20
For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them.”
upon this rock I will build my church,one possible theory,since the earth is basically a giant rock,could it be the church of which he speaks?

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#202781 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>jesus made no claim to anything,that's why i do not believe in organized religion,it is of mans creation to use a mythical gods words,an mans fear of death to make money.
You're entitled to your view; though I disagree with it; but I respect you and love you. Blessings

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#202782 Jun 30, 2010
lnigo Montoya wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hopefully my formatting worked....
Ok, so we see from this website that God sometimes changed names to establish a new identity. What was Peter's new identity? And, by the way, I'm not necessarily going anywhere with this. It just occurred to me that I've never heard from a non-Catholic Christian why this was done or what the significance of this event was. I mean, it MUST be significant because he received the keys of authority right after this. But I wonder what a non-Catholic thinks is the significance of this.
The significance is Peter being born again and being a believer(new identity) through his confession which gave way to the Church. But this only happened because of God's grace and mercy.

2Co 5:17
So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away – look, what is new has come!

charts1

Hamilton, Canada

#202783 Jun 30, 2010
lnigo Montoya wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the problem you are facing is that what you are asking for is not reasonable. What archeological evidence would you expect for a man who was considered by the Jews to be unimportant, though a threat? A man with relatively few followers? He certainly didn't occupy any type of governmental or secular authoritative position to justify archeological evidence. Any archeological evidence that may have existed in Jerusalem is most certainly in ruins following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. So I think we can agree that the demand for archeological evidence is really just not reasonable. That being said, here's a link that gives an interesting perspective on this issue, and perhaps the closest to "archaeological evidence" we'll ever have. Surely you realize that we won't find his bones!
So, how about historical evidence? Well, there is an abundance of this type of evidence - the letters of Paul of Tarsus, a more historical book such as the Acts of the Apostles for starters. I predict you will not want to use the Bible as a source document, despite the validity of doing so, particularly Paul's letters. But there are extra biblical references to Jesus found among the early church fathers. Looking for non-Christian sources? Well, certainly you're familiar with Josephus, though there are some disagreements regarding the historicity of his mention of Jesus. A letter by Tacitus is also a good source. In short, there is ample historical evidence for Jesus.
Blessings
This was a man that christians state performed many miracles for thousands and witnessed by even more. A man they call the greatest man that ever lived. With a title like that there should be all kinds of evidence. There are librairies full of factual information from this era. Yes, much information was lost. We have wall carvings 5,000 years old of Egyptian gods/kings that paint a history of their lives. The shroud of Turin is argued back and forth whether it is authentic or not. Nothing is difinitive. I understand that people believe but that is mostly based on family traditions handed down over the centuries from family to family. I was indoctrinated a catholic from childhood, and like most catholics learned nothing else until adulthood. When you learn the same stories and church doctrines repetatively for years what do you expect? The belief you learned from childhood is usually what you live the rest of your life. If you and I were born in the middle east there are good possibilities that we would be on another forum arguing about our Q'uran.

Paul stated he never met a jesus but saw him as a vision only. According to christians jesus died around 30 AD. Josephus was born in 37AD, so his writings started probably 70 AD. Not contemporary evidence and not a witness of this man jesus.

Julius Casaer was born decades before jesus was supposedly born yet there is much contemporary evidence of his birth and existence and dates are known. We have coins from over 2,000 years ago that depict the image of Casaer.

Christians do not know the birthday or year of birth of jesus. They don't know the date or year he died. They have no description of what he looked like. Thats not good if you have to prove something existed.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#202784 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>upon this rock I will build my church,one possible theory,since the earth is basically a giant rock,could it be the church of which he speaks?
Well...it's a theory and an interesting one at that.

•Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
•Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202785 Jun 30, 2010
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.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202786 Jun 30, 2010
Talk:List of sexually active popes - Wikipedia, the free ...
Shouldn't the...|[Pope Leo VIII]|Popes active...|Clerical celibacy...Then there'd be a married Pope who would have to be dispensed from the condition of ... that would prevent the church from electing a pope who had " sinned....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sexually_a...

Since: Nov 08

usa

#202787 Jun 30, 2010
Justified 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Well...it's a theory and an interesting one at that.
•Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
•Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
if you put those two verses together,god is the rock on which the church is built,but god is a holy ghost so how is that possible,unless like i said before the true church is spiritual only.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#202788 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>if you put those two verses together,god is the rock on which the church is built,but god is a holy ghost so how is that possible,unless like i said before the true church is spiritual only.
Jesus is fully man and fully God my friend. That's how.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#202789 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>if you put those two verses together,god is the rock on which the church is built,but god is a holy ghost so how is that possible,unless like i said before the true church is spiritual only.
If the Church is an assembly of believers; then why wouldn't it be visible as well? And since the believers are united by faith; then how is it not spiritual?

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#202790 Jun 30, 2010
Going to a Bible study now at "Church".:) Blessings jethro; and love you my friend.

Since: Apr 10

East Stroudsburg, PA

#202791 Jun 30, 2010
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>if you put those two verses together,god is the rock on which the church is built,but god is a holy ghost so how is that possible,unless like i said before the true church is spiritual only.
Jethro8 - Now you're talkin'. True church IS spiritual.
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.

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
Ladies, what is the sexual act you most enjoy? 4 min latinobbyloveu 6
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 5 min Neville Thompson 382
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Ooogah Boogah 47,922
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 11 min Voyeur 53,815
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 14 min Neville Thompson 44,706
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 33 min Inspector2 105,576
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 45 min Neville Thompson 281,222
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr River Tam 971,569
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 13 hr oneear69 38,711
More from around the web