Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 599835 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.

Guest

Poplar Bluff, MO

#418412 Jan 27, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
forgery?
Mt 28:19 Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Those scriptures where added bu the RCC the original greek text was actually the same as Acts in my name Yahwushua/Jesus. Wathc the video for the referrences etc.
Guest

Poplar Bluff, MO

#418413 Jan 27, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
not everybody has account to see the film. there are dozens of other links..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xbBBezxalXUXX
I have no account either and it worked for me.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418414 Jan 27, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>again, you are wrong.
I dont memorize Bible verses but I do have a knowledge of what God teaches and says.
and again, it is Jesus who said that a person must repent and be Born Again or they will not enter Heaven. so if you and your family are Born Again Christians, that is great. but if not, you earn your reward.
I say me and my family would be born again.

Still, you say we are not.

Further more, I say billions haven't heard of Jesus Christ since 33 AD. They didn't hear the gospels.
Don't you think Jesus - in His perfect divinity- would first require people to hear those words, then act?
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418415 Jan 27, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>Those scriptures where added bu the RCC the original greek text was actually the same as Acts in my name Yahwushua/Jesus. Wathc the video for the referrences etc.
Actually my ignorant friend, the Church added 27 books to scripture. They authoritatively declared it the New Testament. That's how you have a Bible in the first place to beat us over the head with.
alan

Kansas City, MO

#418416 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
I'm a little crabby today. I've got a migraine. I'll try to be more respectful.
You have a migraine, I have questions. This "God", when will he be here again Clay? You know the Bible character.
Guest

Poplar Bluff, MO

#418417 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I pray my family- especially my children never get suckered into a cult.
When did the corruption of the baptismal formula arise? According to Canney's Encyclopedia of Religion, the early church baptized in the name of Jesus until the second century. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th ed., Vol 3, p365) agrees, stating that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd century. And in Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.389, it notes that baptism was always performed in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr.



It should now be clearly seen that all things are to be done in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), and that the words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," have been added to God's word to support the trinitarian doctrine brought in by the philosophers and other pagan "converts" to "Christianity". These words were not part of the original God-inspired text, much like the added words recorded in I John 5:7 (which are not in any Greek MS. prior to the 16th century).



"Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses, 1 John 5:7-8, shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity.[These added words of I Jn 5]...are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence, the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19." (Conybeare). And we have just seen that in light of Scripture and the early "church" writings, that it too, is unauthentic.



"In the course of my reading, I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty, that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses [I Jn 5:7,8]." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare).



So what is the true "Great Commission" of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Matt 28:19,20 should read as such:



"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in My name: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen."

http://www.oocities.org/fdocc3/quotations.htm

The Originala texr was in Greek and stated in my name

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#418418 Jan 27, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
preston
To clarify...,
Luke 1:31
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his nme Jesus...,35The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The angel said to Mary that "THOU" shalt conceive in 'THY' womb....
It does not say that God shall conceive in thy womb....
This does not mean that God put an embryo from some unknown source into Mary. Rather it means that Mary(in her) shall conceive in her womb.
What the exact operation is we know of the Holy Spirit, and being overshadowed. We also know that his name was Jesus, and he was born of Mary.
This does not mean that Mary had some embryo planted in her. There is no mention of an embryo. But we might assume that in all things Jesus was the same as all human beings except sin, we might assume that God's overshadowing caused one of her eggs to become an embryo, which in turn became attached to the uterine wall....In other words, a normal pregnancy.
dont be as stupid as some others on this forum. the word "conceive' means a BEGINNING, IT DOESNT REFER TO SEX BETWEEN GOD AND MARY. A BEGINNING OF HER PREGNANCY , AS SHE NOW BECAME THE SURROGATE MOTHER OF THE SON OF GOD.

your words"God put an embryo from some unknown source " are rediculous, THE SOURCE IS GOD, NOT SOME UNKNOWN SOURCE.

of course there is no mention of the word"embryo" since it wasnt used until 1548, so get real. AND NO, we might not assume that God caused one of her eggs to become an embryo, it doesnt work that way since it takes male sperm to produce an embryo, BUT GOD DIDNT NEED NOR USE ANY EGG FROM HER SINCE THAT MAKES JESUS HALF MAN/ HALF GOD

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#418419 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
I'm a little crabby today. I've got a migraine. I'll try to be more respectful.
I am sorry to hear that, and pray you will feel better real soon, Clay. I know it's not fun, by any means.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418420 Jan 27, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
When did the corruption of the baptismal formula arise? According to Canney's Encyclopedia of Religion, the early church baptized in the name of Jesus until the second century. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th ed., Vol 3, p365) agrees, stating that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd century. And in Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.389, it notes that baptism was always performed in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr.
It should now be clearly seen that all things are to be done in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), and that the words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," have been added to God's word to support the trinitarian doctrine brought in by the philosophers and other pagan "converts" to "Christianity". These words were not part of the original God-inspired text, much like the added words recorded in I John 5:7 (which are not in any Greek MS. prior to the 16th century).
"Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses, 1 John 5:7-8, shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity.[These added words of I Jn 5]...are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence, the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19." (Conybeare). And we have just seen that in light of Scripture and the early "church" writings, that it too, is unauthentic.
"In the course of my reading, I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty, that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses [I Jn 5:7,8]." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare).
So what is the true "Great Commission" of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Matt 28:19,20 should read as such:
"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in My name: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen."
http://www.oocities.org/fdocc3/quotations.htm
The Originala texr was in Greek and stated in my name
There couldn't be any corruption in the 'Baptismal formula'.
UNLESS Jesus Christ decided not to guide His Church.
Do you think Christ changed his mind and let everyone get messed up until you born agains arrived and read the Bible - 1800 yrs later?
Exactly Guest... where is your faith in Jesus Christ?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418421 Jan 27, 2013
405
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand your reasoning, Dan. How can you deny the very writings that you claim as your sole authority? They profess one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism...one church...Christ's prayer to the Father that they may be...one...
It wasn't His church that broke from protestantism, it was protestants that broke from His church.*That* is the division of which you speak. Pride manifested itself in the reformation, protestantism the result. There's reform and there's reform. Reform for the good of the Church is one thing (see Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross). Reform for the satisfaction of one's ego is quite another (see Martin Luther, et al.)
I'd been meaning to read more about Dorothy Day and found this article about her by Jim Forest entitled "Dorothy Day - Saint and Troublemaker". Seemingly a woman of contradictions, the author relates this anecdote:
"Pleased as she was when home Masses were allowed and the Liturgy translated into English, she didn’t take kindly to smudging the border between the sacred and mundane. When a priest close to the community used a coffee cup for a chalice at a Mass celebrated in the soup kitchen on First Street, she afterward took the cup, kissed it, and buried it in the back yard. It was no longer suited for coffee — it had held the Blood of Christ. I learned more about the Eucharist that day than I had from any book or sermon. It was a learning experience for the priest as well — thereafter he used a chalice."
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/rel...
As you can see, there really were no contradictions. She was a woman of single mind and purpose. She was a daughter of the Church (with more than a bit of St. Peter in her). I hope you print this little story out and keep it close to you, read it often.
The Catholic religion is a denomination and so are all Protestant religions. Christ never built any denomination or denominations.
He established Christianity...

church: ekklesia, a calling out, i.e.(concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.
Guest

Poplar Bluff, MO

#418422 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually my ignorant friend, the Church added 27 books to scripture. They authoritatively declared it the New Testament. That's how you have a Bible in the first place to beat us over the head with.
Thats why we are to reffer to the orginal source as a referrence point because of the HARM YOUR Church the RCC has caused and done.
Clay

Chicago, IL

#418423 Jan 27, 2013
alan wrote:
<quoted text>You have a migraine, I have questions. This "God", when will he be here again Clay? You know the Bible character.
I don't know what you mean.

God is Love. So as long as love is present, God is around.
Jesus Christ is God made flesh. When Jesus comes back, no one knows.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418424 Jan 27, 2013
408
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem is: we don't worship Mary.
you got anything else from our Scriptures?
Catholic worshiping Mary....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/blee...

Worship:
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.

b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

You worship Mary every time you recite the Hail Mary and/or the rosary...

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#418425 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I say me and my family would be born again.
Still, you say we are not.
Further more, I say billions haven't heard of Jesus Christ since 33 AD. They didn't hear the gospels.
Don't you think Jesus - in His perfect divinity- would first require people to hear those words, then act?
clay, I cant say that anyone is Saved, I can only go with their testimony.

and i would not like to think that you would not lie to me about something as important as your soul. Clay, I believe in a"know so Salvation" and I am not alone in that belief. I believe that if God Saved you, you will be able to tell people when you got saved, how God Moved on your soul that Day. in fact, that day will be the most important day of your whole life.

and if that happened to you(being Born again), you will then realize that eating a piece of grain is miniscule, compared to God applying the Blood of Jesus to your soul and cleansing it from all sin.

that piece of grain that you eat could never do that. I hope that you can realize that, and acknowlege my words as being true.

If you cant, and place that piece of grain on the same level as the blood of Jesus Christ, you aint Saved.

and I absolutely refuse to compromise the blood of Jesus for anyone. God thought enough of YOU to give His Son for a Sin Offerring, so you might not have to be sent to hell.
Adam and Steve

Kansas City, MO

#418426 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what you mean.
God is Love. So as long as love is present, God is around.
Jesus Christ is God made flesh. When Jesus comes back, no one knows.
Clay, I study religious brainwashing. God is a character in a book, you know that clay? Did you find this God or did they teach it to you? Either way, its a fable, a fantasy, nothing more. That's why you and every human before you and every human after you will keep asking, "When will God appear?" Soon ,they will say. Do you know what is out in space clay? Advanced Alien Beings.....your Bible Gods! So, go bow your head and pray...don't look up clay.....its truly scary!
guest

United States

#418427 Jan 27, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence. For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.
When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone:“flesh and blood” do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it …4
4. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, Ignatius Press (1996): 61-65, 72-74.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/the -...
-
-
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the stupidest Idealogy I ever read, but of course it would be.
It came from none other then the enabler of the murderers, and rapists of Children .
Please post from some one with a little more credablity then that.
Even among the catholic's I know, he has none.
-
-
I agree LTM.
-
The ideology propounded by Ratzinger, and all Catholics, is the same tired old stuff, repeated ad nauseam by Catholic leaders and Catholic followers.
-
Jesus' name was not even mentioned here by Ratzinger - I wonder if any of the Catholics here noticed that? and for Ratzinger to say that "Peter has *repeatedly* stood as The Rock" is nothing short of blasphemy.
-
Peter is DEAD and incapable of standing as the rock.
-
JESUS is NOT DEAD, but has been resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father. JESUS is the ROCK the Christian Faith was built on. Not Peter.
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#418428 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
I'm a little crabby today. I've got a migraine. I'll try to be more respectful.
Your a little crabby ALL THE TIME! Read all your previous posts?

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#418429 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
There couldn't be any corruption in the 'Baptismal formula'.
UNLESS Jesus Christ decided not to guide His Church.
Do you think Christ changed his mind and let everyone get messed up until you born agains arrived and read the Bible - 1800 yrs later?
Exactly Guest... where is your faith in Jesus Christ?
the FIRST sign or mark of a cult is that they refuse to accept the word of God and try to change it for whatever reason.

so just consider the source and dont accept anything from them.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#418430 Jan 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually my ignorant friend, the Church added 27 books to scripture. They authoritatively declared it the New Testament. That's how you have a Bible in the first place to beat us over the head with.
NO.
The romanist denomination did not write the Bible.... nor did it give it to anyone.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#418431 Jan 27, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
Only the Catholics!!!!
When Rome went from being pagan to Christian under Constantine, they had to find a replacement for the great mother of paganism. It was not until the time of Constantine that anyone began to look at Mary as a goddess.
Since Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, she was the most logical person to replace the pagan mother goddess. The pagans could continue their prayers and devotion to the mother goddess, only they would call her Mary.
The pagans worshipped the mother as much or more than her son and this is exactly what the Roman Catholicism does. True Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped – not his mother.
The fact remains that Jesus never hinted at the idea of Mary worship nor did any of the apostles. Worshipping the mother goddess along with her child took place centuries before Jesus Christ was ever born in many different parts of the world. In 431 A.D. Mary worship became an official doctrine of the church in at the Council of Ephesus.
All these stories played out centuries before. The only difference is the character names are different.

Its all part of our history.

http://pocm.info/

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 Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 22 min Chimney1 268
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 12 hr par five 84,327
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Jul 28 Gee Tee 9,601
News Hispanics energized by Argentinian pope's first... Jul 27 tomin cali 1
News Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis po... (Mar '14) Jul 26 pazuzu 91
News Pope previews long-awaited climate letter Jul 25 pazuzu 14
News Poll: US views of Francis dim; a plunge in appr... Jul 24 Bug Spray 20
More from around the web