Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Comments (Page 20,165)

Showing posts 403,281 - 403,300 of512,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418403
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
By whom's authority do you have the right to tell me I can't do something God says I can do.
God gave the Catholic church the Holy Scriptures to safe not a chances Clay are you kidding.
You should read up on the Nomads Clay. You might learn something.
Where does God say you can privately interpret sacred scripture how you see fit.

AND,

Teach those scriptures how you see fit?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418404
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
ReginaM

Lakewood, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418405
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pad wrote:
Regina continued:I see many things about Roman Catholicism that continues to divide the Body.It is very hard for evangelicals especially to forsake the original commandments by forcing a unity with Roman Catholicism,in regards to the houses of worship and the use of images and so on.Those protestants who seek to be RC may have no problem with certain things,but eventually will have problems with the lack of real fellowship,that creates a greater bond with individual believers.
I do not personally have a problem with the RC Liturgy,and of course I respect it.But to me than that is all there is,because you have to seek out those who have been converted as you say.
We who are not RC receive the truth of the Liturgy through the preaching of the Word,and I will not argue whether or not that is the case in your estimation,although you can comment on that if you want. But truth and the exposition of such in preaching and teaching brings out the Liturgy of what you hear at Mass. Of course I know that Communion is different.
What you think we may lack,is what many fail to see in the very act of being present to HEAR and receive of what is true,noble,of good report,and holy in the Body of Christ.
Serving Christ is part of every aspect of becoming believers.That is the DOERS of the Word,as James teaches,not just hearers.
That uniqueness in Christ that we all have does set apart all who follow Him.We grow in that grace and knowledge of what sets us apart. We are not of this w o r l d,and that has to be seen in how we deal with sin,not how we look.
Unity can only be a spiritual understanding of what connects us to begin with.If we look at our ways of conducting services,or the mass,we will rebel from the notion that we are ONE in Christ.But if we see Him in us,than in fact we are ONE in Christ,and the truth of His Word and Prayer to His Father is fulfilled.
Many may see that we have to be under one title of Christian faith,but if we really open our eyes of understanding,we realize that our UNITY is spiritually motivated by the Spirit in Christ.
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 wicked are not smart”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418406
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RCC Superiority So BUSTED wrote:
<quoted text>
95% of humanity doesn't buy into the RCC's "perfect teachings" baloney -- and 90% of those had this drilled into them since early childhood.
We see their perfect teachings in action. Mexico City is the largest RCC-majority city on earth.
With it's RCC values, Catholic Mexico is a big narco-country today.
But what can we expect from a totalitarian RCC value system that brought us Hitler, Franco, and Saint Mussolini?
“95% of humanity doesn't buy into the RCC's "perfect teachings" baloney -- and 90% of those had this drilled into them since early childhood.”
1- Please cite the source of your statistics please. LOL!
2- The Catholic Church has many rites besides the roman rite. Just trying to help your ignorance a little bit.
3- The Catholic Church’s teachings are indeed perfect because they don’t come from man but from God.
4- Even if 0% of the world’s population didn’t believe in the Catholic Church, She would continue to be the only True Church that Christ founded. Truth does not depend on trends, opinions, popular vote,% of people that adhere to it, etc. For example, the Earth never was the center of the universe, not even when close to 100% of the people believed so.
And finally, the Catholic Church is a monarchy of divine origin and not a democracy. Because truth is not determined by human beings but comes from God (and thus it is absolute, unchangeable and universal), the Catholic Church, who is the guardian of this truth, cannot be a democracy.
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418407
Jan 27, 2013
 
I'm a little crabby today. I've got a migraine. I'll try to be more respectful.
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418408
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.
The only problem is: we don't worship Mary.
you got anything else from our Scriptures?

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418409
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>lol, any time you or any other catholic on here can prove me wrong on my understanding of what God teaches ,BRING IT ON!!!!!
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.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418410
Jan 27, 2013
 
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You memorize Bible versus Preston. That's all.
You've come to the conclusion that me, my wife and two children will be in eternal hell because we plan on remaining Catholic. We are not saved according to you.
You want more proof?
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.
aussiejohn

Madrid, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418411
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.
You should check out the writings of a bloke called "Origin". Now as i recall he was writing within a century or so of Jesus's death and was considered for saint hood. Anyway, he went on about people taking much of the new testament too literally and totally missing the point which was intended. Not sure the writers of the Gospels had a debate on embryos in mind when the penned that one. Something much deeper is actually going on.
Guest

Poplar Bluff, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418412
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418413
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

socci wrote:
<quoted text>
not everybody has account to see the film. there are dozens of other links..
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I have no account either and it worked for me.
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418414
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418415
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418417
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418418
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418420
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418421
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 403,281 - 403,300 of512,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••
•••