Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 548,959
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
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.

“physics is your friend”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#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

Minneapolis, 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

Minneapolis, 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

Minneapolis, 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

Minneapolis, 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
guest

United States

#413268 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
-
oh, please!
-
a person is not called a "wino" because they drink "grape juice"
-
they are called a "wino" because they are a drunk - and you can't get drunk on grape juice.
-
Same-same: It's called wine because it has been fermented and has alcohol content - at that point in time it is no longer "grape juice".
-
Now we have no clue as to the alcohol content of Jesus' "new WINE" but, we know it WAS wine and not "grape juice". Jesus could do it in an instant. It takes grapes and yeasts much longer as the fermentation process takes time.
-
Of course, Catholics think they can re-write the Bible and God will accept it. Never mind that they are, in essence, calling God a liar when they do that. yada, yada ... "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven ..."
-
...forgetting that they "THE CATHOLICS" have bound upon earth: The Inquisition; Torture of 'Heretics'; and The Sheltering of Pedophiles (at the "supposedly" Most Holy piece of real estate on the planet.
-
wow! heaven must be a fine place (for Catholics) if that is the case!
-
The Catholic Church is disgusting and full of evil. The occasional 'good deed' cannot cover up its evil history. It is Pagan through and through. Everywhere you look in the Catholic Church, there are rites and rituals borrowed from Paganism.
-
And Catholics call it ... "Most Holy"! Nothing can be further from the truth.
-
If it's Pagan, it's from Satan - and after that, you are simply arguing semantics.
-
-
How very sad that Catholics think they can call God a liar, and that it is A-OK with God ..."whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven ..." blah, blah, blah ...
-
sickening!
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#413269 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
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


I would be very concerned and very upset if my church bank was involved with money laundering (for the second known time in 25 years)

I know! its not the vaticans fault. It NEVER is. Its always someone elses fault. What is the purpose of the pope if he is never responsible for ANYTHING.

http://rt.com/news/vatican-mafia-laundering-m...





“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#413270 Jan 4, 2013
Aviela wrote:
<quoted text> May I ask what is the real church?
The REAL Church is invisible. It is made up of those truly Born Again individuals who have accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them. He said that without being born again, one cannot 'see' the Kingdom of God. One cannot 'join' it by shaking a hand, or being received into a denominational group.

The Lord knows His own, and there are some in many different groups. That is what makes it invisible. No one denominational 'church' can lay claim to His church.

He doesn't make it hard. He paid our debt for us, and allows us to choose to answer His call.

Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#413271 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Get up to speed Clay!

Were talking about WINE today......Come ON!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#413272 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That was big news just a little while ago. Where have you Been?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#413273 Jan 4, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL
So what you are saying is that; to know your own will is to know the Will of Self, and this is the kingdom of God.
Why don't you believe in sin?
So I will just recopy what I wrote on the nature of the human will, which you just skipped over..., as usual(sigh)namely that it is appetitive in nature due to desire.
"One's own will tends to follow its human nature, thus becomes trapped in its own passions of the body, as well as its intellectual affinites. This creates "whirlpools", that tend to move the will towards itself, and in its own desires, namely concupiscence, and disordered passions....
It is for this reason that the "will" is appetitive because of desire(though as you write, it can be motivated by fear...,i.e. mainly fear of loss, or fear of loss of desire, and intellect). I think it has to do with the fear of loss of identity....That one becomes just another face in the crowd. Or, in this case fear of loss of one's identity in God.
Free-will comes into play when the will is at liberty to choose the good over the bad(the light over the dark). There is great difficulty in "recollection", that is summing up the forces which the will desires, or to even realize them. It is more often than not we think we are strong; when we are weak, and weak; when we are strong.(This is the"whirlpool" effect) in the soul, to which we seek "liberty"....free-wi ll."
By the way, this "whirlpool" effect is more commonly known as "Incurvitus in se"....(Turned or curved in on oneself)....
I didn't skip over this the last time, I just found it to be lacking. Please supply the citation for this hypothesis of yours.

You really don't think "free will" exists, huh? Because, if I am understanding your "logic" above, free will is determined by "God", and not by man, thus we don't have any free will to make those choices we do, only "God" makes them.

I disagree.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#413275 Jan 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
The REAL Church is invisible. It is made up of those truly Born Again individuals who have accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them. He said that without being born again, one cannot 'see' the Kingdom of God. One cannot 'join' it by shaking a hand, or being received into a denominational group.
The Lord knows His own, and there are some in many different groups. That is what makes it invisible. No one denominational 'church' can lay claim to His church.
He doesn't make it hard. He paid our debt for us, and allows us to choose to answer His call.
The Church is not an invisible body of believers loosely connected by their belief in sola scriptura.

Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church'(not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus' oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

John 17:9-26 - Jesus' prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.

John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
Clay

Chicago, IL

#413276 Jan 4, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
The REAL Church is invisible. It is made up of those truly Born Again individuals who have accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them. He said that without being born again, one cannot 'see' the Kingdom of God. One cannot 'join' it by shaking a hand, or being received into a denominational group.
The Lord knows His own, and there are some in many different groups. That is what makes it invisible. No one denominational 'church' can lay claim to His church.
He doesn't make it hard. He paid our debt for us, and allows us to choose to answer His call.
"For many will come in my name.. "

Confrint, Our Lord never speaks of an invisible church that he's establishing.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#413277 Jan 4, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be very concerned and very upset if my church bank was involved with money laundering (for the second known time in 25 years)
I know! its not the vaticans fault. It NEVER is. Its always someone elses fault. What is the purpose of the pope if he is never responsible for ANYTHING.
http://rt.com/news/vatican-mafia-laundering-m...
Oh no Miguel, I'm never concerned with the 'news stories' you conjure up.
You're old and just discovering the internet. I don't read radical ideological websites for my news anyway.
Do you really think you're noble for doing this?

It ain't news. Its not breaking. Its not shocking.

You should really get a life.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#413278 Jan 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you hate the Church. And that is first and foremost on your mind whenever you post.
I think you are reading way to much into what FM has written.

I honestly think he doesn't "hate" anyone or anything.

"Hate" is a strong word to use. I'd be more inclined to say that FM "doesn't care for" or maybe even "dislikes" the so-called, undefined "Church". But "hate" - I doubt it.

Hate is a characteristic of those who have no control over their life, which if involved with "hate", chaos ensues.

These are the types of attitudes you commonly see with so-called "Christians" - always taking the extreme, when they have been show that their "extremes" are unfounded.

Can you give some sort of correlation of FM's "hate" to other "haters".

Don't hate - appreciate!

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
Pope to visit Blue Mosque, Hagia Sophia in Turkey Tue Serkan Turkbayram 6
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Tue Mr Sir 8,518
Pope Francis leaves the beatification ceremony ... Oct 20 Belle Sexton 11
Selfies with Pope Francis cardboard cutouts pop... Oct 18 ELIAS IBARRA 6
Catholic bishops take first step toward accepta... Oct 16 Mychihuahuawillbite 2
Pope Francis shows strong, unique leadership fo... Oct 15 Gremlin 2
Gradualism and Holiness Oct 15 RevKen 1

Pope Benedict XVI People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE