Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665571 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.

Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#413247 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
lol. I bring up sexual revolution for the 2nd time in 3yrs and I'm obsessed with sex??
meanwhile, you and Michael bring up child sexual abuse EVERY SINGLE DAY, but your normal?
And don't ask me why Benito gave the Church their own bank account. How do I know?
Probably, because any income the Church compiled doesn't belong to Italy. Silly.
Does the Pentecostals have to turn their income over to Obama?? well, not yet anyway.
Not their own bank account dummy, their own bank.

And diplomatic immunity too.

Now calm down, stop obsessing about sex and try to make sense.
Michael

Canada

#413248 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
lol. I bring up sexual revolution for the 2nd time in 3yrs and I'm obsessed with sex??
meanwhile, you and Michael bring up child sexual abuse EVERY SINGLE DAY, but your normal?
And don't ask me why Benito gave the Church their own bank account. How do I know?
Probably, because any income the Church compiled doesn't belong to Italy. Silly.
Does the Pentecostals have to turn their income over to Obama?? well, not yet anyway.
The 10 commandments......

Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#413249 Jan 4, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
Two points to that. Either there is a helluva lot more catholics opting out of their marriages or the church has found a way to make some money on the side.
Yesterdays news was the Vatican is NOT accepting credit cards on Museum tours anymore $$CASH$$ ONLY. Why? Because the government of Italy has decided the catholic church has not got their MONEY LAUNDERING scandals under control.
Imagine a church laundering finances? Its not just the MOB anymore.
Catholics will blame me again for this bad news story........(lol)
Jesus was cash only too, so they'll just call it tradition.

So again, "only tradition" and certainly nothing to do with running a dishonest bank.

Just kidding.

Michael, they need your help. The Mussolini trap is drowning them.
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#413250 Jan 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and Anthony, you know we agree with some of the early writings outside the Bible and disagree with others, we don't have to go through that again do we?
We've never gone "through" it. The problem you have is that you want us to believe there were sola scriptura evangelicals after the completion of the bible, but you've never produced one shred of evidence. Here's your chance.
Michael

Canada

#413251 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes that's what I'm saying.
Although its not a couple rock bands..silly.
Its a whole culture shift in moral standards that - although always around in some capacity - was never on the level that began in the 60s and you know it.
Vatican II accelerated everything bad thats NOW going on in the church.

Conservative catholics of the day did not WANT change. Did not want VATICAN II.

Nuns divided up right away. Old nuns versus young nuns. Old school habits versus new casual look. Those stuck in the convent with little education,versus new younger nuns wanting an education and being able to work in society to help the poor, not stuck in dingy convents cranking out communion hosts, repairing priests ripped vestments, and cleaning toilets.

Priests mired in pre-vatican II policies versus new priests taught in Vatican II ONLY policies.

Today! 2013, nuns fighting with the vatican over the rights they were given 50 years ago in vatican II. Priests around the globe forming unions, upset with being treated badly by their bishops and wanting Vatican II policies to stay in place as they were taught. The pope wanting to turn back to pre-vatican II.......and catholics caught in the middle.

ITS A REAL CAN OF WORMS!

Michael

Canada

#413252 Jan 4, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was cash only too, so they'll just call it tradition.
So again, "only tradition" and certainly nothing to do with running a dishonest bank.
Just kidding.
Michael, they need your help. The Mussolini trap is drowning them.
My helping hand has always been there.

I am like the guy from BAR RESCUE. Clean house is the only way to put the catholic church back into sinc.

Catholics have to first lose the fear in questioning their church leaders.

Every $1 they send me, will assure them that I am working hard on their behalf.......

......OOPS! Just got my first $3. One from Anthony, HOJO and REGINA M.

let the work begin! LOL

Michael

Canada

#413253 Jan 4, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was cash only too, so they'll just call it tradition.
So again, "only tradition" and certainly nothing to do with running a dishonest bank.
Just kidding.
Michael, they need your help. The Mussolini trap is drowning them.
FREE MIND says...
Jesus was cash only too, so they'll just call it tradition.

MICHAEL says........cash transactions are good! Money under the table. No paper trail. The vatican is catching on.

Jesus had no job according to scriptures. A late 20s something guy, just tripped around with 12 guys roaming big city downtown cores asking "hey buddy spare some change for a coffee"?

.....I forgot they only had wine back then.

marge

Leesburg, GA

#413254 Jan 4, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
We've never gone "through" it. The problem you have is that you want us to believe there were sola scriptura evangelicals after the completion of the bible, but you've never produced one shred of evidence. Here's your chance.
There were Sola Scripturists before the N.T was complete, again I ask if you think the O.T. points to Christ?

And here's one writing we agree with;

Clement of Rome (?- 110), "And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen." (First Clement, 32-33)
Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#413255 Jan 4, 2013
Aviela wrote:
If Jesus made grape juice the Bible would of said: Grape Juice.
Well, actually, no.
.
It said "New wine."
.
Even when Welch's i troduced their product, they didn't call it "Juice."
.
Its original marketed name was "Welch's Grape Wine."
.
Rob

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#413257 Jan 4, 2013
Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, actually, no.
.
It said "New wine."
.
Even when Welch's i troduced their product, they didn't call it "Juice."
.
Its original marketed name was "Welch's Grape Wine."
.
Rob
Where does it say that jesus made new wine {grape juice}?
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#413258 Jan 4, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
Vatican II accelerated everything bad thats NOW going on in the church.
Conservative catholics of the day did not WANT change. Did not want VATICAN II.
Nuns divided up right away. Old nuns versus young nuns. Old school habits versus new casual look. Those stuck in the convent with little education,versus new younger nuns wanting an education and being able to work in society to help the poor, not stuck in dingy convents cranking out communion hosts, repairing priests ripped vestments, and cleaning toilets.
Priests mired in pre-vatican II policies versus new priests taught in Vatican II ONLY policies.
Today! 2013, nuns fighting with the vatican over the rights they were given 50 years ago in vatican II. Priests around the globe forming unions, upset with being treated badly by their bishops and wanting Vatican II policies to stay in place as they were taught. The pope wanting to turn back to pre-vatican II.......and catholics caught in the middle.
ITS A REAL CAN OF WORMS!
I just don't see these 'news stories' that you do. In fact, you gotta google pretty hard to find them. Then if you do, its nothing written by anyone of importance..
It doesn't appear to be anything out of the norm either. It appears to be typical of any group of people; athletic, political, educational, or religion!
I think you just really really wanna see chaos in the Church and you'll do anything to spread as much trash as possible even if its not worthy enough for a story.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#413259 Jan 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
There were Sola Scripturists before the N.T was complete, again I ask if you think the O.T. points to Christ?
And here's one writing we agree with;
Clement of Rome (?- 110), "And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen." (First Clement, 32-33)
Huh? There was Sola Scripturist BEFORE the NT was complete?

I like how you cherry pick Clement of Rome. Maybe you can read his other writings too.

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#413260 Jan 4, 2013
The Vatican....can't take credit cards? Wow.I guess being the only"true"church of Jesus Christ is no guarantee against bad banking practices..

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#413261 Jan 4, 2013
Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, actually, no.
.
It said "New wine."
.
Even when Welch's i troduced their product, they didn't call it "Juice."
.
Its original marketed name was "Welch's Grape Wine."
.
Rob
Very clever! You are trying to take a term coined in 1869 and use it in 30! You are very clever indeed!

http://www.welchs.com/about-welchs/history

Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, a physician and dentist by profession, successfully pasteurizes Concord grape juice to produce an "unfermented sacramental wine" for fellow parishioners at his church in Vineland, N.J., where he is communion steward. His achievement marks the beginning of the processed fruit juice industry.
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#413262 Jan 4, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
There were Sola Scripturists before the N.T was complete, again I ask if you think the O.T. points to Christ?
And here's one writing we agree with;
Clement of Rome (?- 110), "And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen." (First Clement, 32-33)
Yes of course the OT points to Christ. That's not the issue. The issue is which early Christians believed the same as today's evangelicals. St. Clement certainly didn't. This piece is something that the Catholic Church believes, but he wrote a lot of other things that you vehemently disagree with, so he obviously wasn't an "early" evangelical by your standards. Do you think you can pick certain paragraphs from their writings and claim they're evangelicals when you disagree with everything else they wrote? I don't think so. What else do you have marge?
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#413263 Jan 4, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
CLAY says.....
And don't ask me why Benito gave the Church their own bank account. How do I know?
MICHAEL says......DON'T you think you should find out???
..... You tell us you know everything there is to know about your church but when it comes to scandals you pull back into your shell like a frightened turtle head.
Did you not know this is the SECOND money laundering scandal the vatican bank has been involved in since the 1980s? Are you OK with that?
....Doesn't bother you at all. UNBELIEVABLE!
No I did not know about a money laundering scandal. My guess is its another 'story' you uncovered on that internet thingy. lol

And pleas cite a post where I claimed to 'know everything there is to know about my church'.

That's ridiculous.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#413264 Jan 4, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
My helping hand has always been there.
I am like the guy from BAR RESCUE. Clean house is the only way to put the catholic church back into sinc.
Catholics have to first lose the fear in questioning their church leaders.
Every $1 they send me, will assure them that I am working hard on their behalf.......
......OOPS! Just got my first $3. One from Anthony, HOJO and REGINA M.
let the work begin! LOL
I'll tell you one thing: I never came across people like you and Free Mind - who are so oddly obsessed with another group of people. Its very weird.
I could never imagine going on a Muslim themed website and posting unfavorable things about them...12-15 times per day!!
And 3/4 of your posts are about child sexual abuse too! Another very bizarre angle on that.
Eh, you aint Catholic...so what? Nobodies forcing you to go to Confession. I don't see the rationale of trying to drag as many people away from the Church as possible. Im guessing you're very insecure about the path you've chosen and somehow need to justify this path by bashing the Church to which you once belonged...hmmm
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#413265 Jan 4, 2013
Debate with James White, "Reformed Baptist Evangelical".

lol. Really great reading.

"Okay.:-) Well, if you feel that I am misrepresenting your doctrine, will you at least do me the favor of showing me the flaw in my reasoning in regard to your position? As I understand it, you maintain that:

(a) The Bible is a source of objective information which any sincere, unbiased, intelligent Christian believer can read and understand.

(b) The Bible objectively teaches the Evangelical (Reformed Baptist) Christian faith.

(c) The Evangelical (Reformed Baptist) Christian faith is Christian orthodoxy.

Do I understand you correctly so far, Mr. White? Well, if so, I believe that you also maintain that:

(d) "Sola Scriptura is a fundamental truth" -- the rule of faith for Christian orthodoxy (i.e. Reformed Baptist Evangelicalism).

(e) This is because the Bible alone is all that the Apostles left to us; and thus the Bible contains (in written form) the sum total of orthodox Christian doctrine (i.e. the doctrines of Reformed Baptist Evangelicalism).

(f) A true, sincere, Sola Scriptura reading of the Bible will objectively and invariably present the Evangelical (Reformed Baptist) Christian faith to the reader.

(g) Some early Christians, such as the Church Father St. Athanasius, subscribed to Sola Scriptura.

So, do you agree with all the statements above, Mr. White? Have I misrepresented your position in regard to any of them? Well, if not, can you please explain, for starters, what went wrong with St. Athanasius?:-) You do claim that he subscribed to Sola Scriptura, right? Well, was St. Athanasius a Reformed Baptist Evangelical? Are you able to recognize him as one?

We both know that such a thing is impossible because Athanasius clearly taught things that are alien to Reformed Baptist Evangelicalism, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mary's perpetual virginity, infant Baptism, and the like.

So, what went wrong? Clearly, if you still hold that Athanasius subscribed to Sola Scriptura, you must also maintain that he was not very good at it. ;-) However, upon what would you objectively base that assumption? If you claim to subscribe to Sola Scriptura, and (as you say) St. Athanasius also subscribed to Sola Scriptura, what makes your interpretation of the Bible any better than his? What is your objective standard for deciding whose interpretation is correct?

Would you say that St. Athanasius was not an orthodox Christian? Remember, we are talking about the lone voice against the Arian heresy in the 4th Century Eastern Church (indeed, "throughout the whole Church," according to your colleague, Robert Zins). So, was Athanasius orthodox or not? After all, according to your position, he did hold to the rule of faith of "orthodox Christianity" (Sola Scriptura). Yet, even so, he did not arrive at Reformed Baptist Evangelicalism. Why not?

Do you think that St. Athanasius was not sincere? Do you think he wasn't intelligent? Do you think he was not committed to Christ?"

cont.
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#413266 Jan 4, 2013
cont.

"Clearly, if you hold that St. Athanasius subscribed to Sola Scriptura as the rule of faith, yet did not arrive at the same interpretation of the Bible as you, you must then conclude that he made some error along the way. Yet, Mr. White, assuming that St. Athanasius did fall short in this regard, how can you be sure that you're not prone to error as well?:-) If a sincere, intelligent, saintly man like St. Athanasius could "misinterpret the Bible's objective message" (even when he was a native speaker of Biblical Greek!), how do you know you're not doing it as well? How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is any more orthodox than Athanasius'? How do you objectively know that the Reformed Baptist Evangelical interpretation of Scripture is objectively correct???

That is to say, how do you know that it's any better than St. Athanasius', OR Martin Luther's (who also taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mary's perpetual virginity, and infant Baptism ...just like St. Athanasius. ;-)

So, if Athanasius (supposedly) subscribed to Sola Scriptura, and if Martin Luther also subscribed to Sola Scriptura; and if they agree on these doctrines, while you oppose them, how do you objectively know that your position is correct? How do you know that "the Eucharist is symbolic," that "Mary had other children," and that "Baptism is merely an outward sign" when (a) the Scriptures never directly define these issues, and (b) the verses which indirectly refer to them can be interpreted differently by Sola Scriptura-style readers? Therefore, how can you objectively claim to be orthodox? How do you know that the Bible objectively teaches the Reformed Baptist Evangelical faith?

There's only one way, Mr. White. You need to show that your interpretation of the Bible is consistent and repeatable throughout history. You need to show Christians in the early Church who you would clearly identify as "orthodox" (i.e. Reformed Baptist Evangelicals)."

cont.
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#413267 Jan 4, 2013
cont.

"Again,

(a) If the Bible is an objective source of information, and ...

(b) If it objectively teaches the Reformed Baptist Evangelical Christian faith, then ...

(c) The Reformed Baptist Evangelical faith should be the consistent result from any Sola Scriptura reading of the Bible.

Therefore, let's assume that St. Athanasius and Martin Luther are "historical flukes." :-) Let's say that, for whatever reason, they failed to be faithful to Sola Scriptura. In that case, it still follows that ...

(a) If the Bible presents us with an objective body of doctrine, and ...

(b) If that objective body of doctrine can be read and correctly understood by anyone who adheres to the principle of Sola Scriptura, and ...

(c) If orthdox Christians throughout history have always rejected the "man-made traditions" of Catholicism and "remained faithful" to the Apostlic faith as it is "contained solely in the pages of Scripture," then ....

It necessarily follows, Mr. White, that you must be able to point to an ancient "orthodox Christian." ...That is to say, someone who achieved the same result from reading the Bible as you (i.e. the Reformed Baptist Evangelical faith).

Otherwise, you have no objective standard for showing that your interpretation of Scripture is correct. Now, once again, how is my reasoning flawed?:-)

If "X" = Reformed Baptist Evangelicalism,....

And if you say that the Bible objectively teaches "X," ...

And if the Bible does indeed objectively teach "X," ....

Then we must have numerous examples of ancient "orthodox Christians" saying that the Bible teaches "X" too.

Where is the flaw in that, Mr. White?:-)

Yet, if we lack even a single example of an ancient Christian claiming that the Bible teaches "X" (i.e., Reformed Baptist Evangelicalism), then ...

(1) Either the Bible was not properly understood until you Reformed Baptists came along, or ...

(2) The Bible doesn't teach "X" at all. ;-)

So, if (2) is correct, your position is undone; and if (1) is correct, then Sola Scriptura is still disproven as a practical principle, since centuries of committed, Sola Scriptura Christians had the Bible in their possession but failed to read it correctly.

So, you only have one choice, Mr. White. If Sola Scriptura is true; and if your interpretation of the Bible is the objective message presented by the written text, then you must point to an ancient Christian who is unquestionably "orthodox" in your eyes (i.e., one who would be your co-religious today).

Now, I seriously doubt that you would have difficulty identifying such a person in the 17th or 18th century. I'm sure you could find an "orthodox Christian" from that time most easily. And the same goes for today. I doubt anyone would seriously dispute that Jason Engwer is (even remotely) your co-religious. So, what about your co-religious in the ancient Church, Mr. White? Where are they? Using the same standards as those cited above, can you name an "orthodox Christian" from ancient times or not? And, if not, why not?:-) Didn't they possess the Bible? Didn't some of them (according to your view) adhere to Sola Scriptura and despise the "human traditions" of Rome?:-)

Well, if so, where are they? Where were they when St. Athanasius supposedly stood alone in defending the Deity of Christ?:-) Where were they when Pope Innocent tried to include the "Apocrypha" in the Bible? Where were they when the Council of Ephesus proclaimed Mary to be the "Mother of God," or when St. Athanasius was teaching the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the Baptism of infants? Did "orthodox Christians" have nothing to say???:-)"

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num24.htm

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.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Catholic schools being closed at alarming rate (Apr '08) 10 hr Father OFlanery 160
News Pope Francis's Visit to Turkey Embroiled in Par... (Dec '14) Dec 3 Azat 2
News As election nears, Pope Francis warns against f... Dec 1 Communist In A Dress 20
News Region's Catholic bishop welcomes Pope's stance... Nov 30 Cops are degenerates 35
News Franklin Graham rebuts pope on Islam: - This is... Nov 29 narako 2
News Free Presbyterians 'will protest' Pope's visit Nov 29 narako 1
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Nov 29 Married in 10,375
More from around the web