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 20,176)

Showing posts 403,501 - 403,520 of529,972
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418751
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Elizabeth wrote:
As someone who is catholic and was raised in the faith, I find this truly offensive that the Pope would make a statement like this. It is making me seriously consider leaving the church. As long as popele believe in God and the holy trinity, why does it matter whether they believe as catholics, methodists, lutherans, etc? I think Benedict has gone too far with this statement and I do believe it is going to hurt the catholic church in the long run.
Am a catholic tae mate, the child sex abuse thing made me chuck it, but I was already having doubts about it...it's all a load of baloney IMHO, no trying to offend anybody but that's ma view.
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418752
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Truth wrote:
How can one study and understand the Scriptures without making a private interpretation of Scripture?
Each person is responsible for himself.
Another person cannot decide or act for him/her.
Work out your OWN salvation....
Each of us, as Catholics< make a point of "individually reading and studying the bible" on our own. The Catholic Catechism from Jesus Christs One True Catholic Church is a guide to our interpretation of Sacred Scripture as there are many, many verses, parables and writings that can be interpreted and better yet "mis-interpreted in ways, not compatible to the "true interpretation that was originally "handed down: by the Early Church Fathers, who formed the Canon of Scripture in 382, 393 and 397....Paul in 1 Tim 3:15 gives us guidance in the TRUTH when he calls "the Church (not the Bible) the pillar, pinnacle and foundation of the TRUTH. We as Catholics, study, listen, believe and adhere to the TRUTH of the bible, each and ever day, on our own, and at daily Mass. It is the "only" TRUE, authenticated and verifiable interpretation that, we as Catholics, can be positively "sure of" as TRUTH. Jesus established ONLY ONE TRUTH!.... Not 42,000+ contradicting, conflicting and inconsistent interpretations of the bible which is the direction that Protestants have taken since the Reformation!!
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418754
Jan 29, 2013
 
Cpdf wrote:
<quoted text>
Am a catholic tae mate, the child sex abuse thing made me chuck it, but I was already having doubts about it...it's all a load of baloney IMHO, no trying to offend anybody but that's ma view.
If you chucked Catholicism because of that, then you chucked it for other reasons.
The abuse thing makes all of us sick. But you need to remember, its no more a problem in the CC then any other group on the planet. But the fact that its from an ordained Priest; a man of God, should make any human cringe. But its important to remember, these skum sinned and violated the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The Bishops that covered it up (whether it was for forgiveness of the guilty or concerns about their image, is inexcusable as well. The good news is that this so-called cover up should never happen again, because of new protocols in place. The Church is tackling this issue head on, with boldness.
Quick example of new policies in place: I volunteer for 'project home' in the Twin Cities. Every year the CC - along with many Protestant Churches, open up their doors in MN for homeless families. I had to attend a mandatory training called 'Virtus training'. This is a 3 hr class that the Catholic Church requires ALL laity, clergy and employers to go through in order to work or volunteer in Catholic schools or Churches. None of the Protestant churches participating in Project Home required this- yet, statistically, they had/have the same problems of child sexual abuse as the CC. I'm not taking anything away from the noble cause they are doing with the Homeless. I'm just pointing out one example of how the CC combating this issue.
duststorm

League City, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418755
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
"If they read the Bible for themselves, they would leave the Romanist cult"
Sadly, the ones that do- as evident from the protestant posters on here- are radical fundamentalist. We wish they could remain and be good Catholics, but since they won't we gotta say good bye.
On the flip side, the prominent or notable Evangelicals that are coming into the Catholic Church is staggering. Nobody in your circles will talk about this. These people are interested in truth. You are not.
Hi Clay, I remember when you were a newcomer to this thread. Hope all is well with you.
The following truth should shake you to your core, if you can be brutally honest with yourself:
Peter was married. This fact alone should make you realize that if a prophet is wrong in one tiny aspect, he is a false prophet.
The supposed first pope was a humble disciple who had a wife and a mother-in-law.
Clay, this is serious. For once, please suspend your faith in the Roman Catholic hierarchyand its so-called infallible prophets, and turn, ever so slightly, in the direction of truth.
7th Day Catholic Rocks

Poplar Bluff, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418756
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A man noticed a woman in the grocery store with a three-year-old
girl in her cart.

As they passed the cookie section, the little girl asked for
cookies and her mother told her no.

The little girl immediately began to have a conniption fit, and
the mother said quietly, "Now Missy, we just have half of the
aisles left to go through, don't be upset. It won't be long."

In the candy aisle, the little girl began to shout for treats.

When mom said she couldn't have any, she began to kick her
mother and scream. The mother said softly, "There, there,
Missy, don't cry, only two more aisles to go and then we'll be
checking out."

When they got to the checkout stand, the little brat immediately
began to reach for the gum and freaked out when her mom said she
couldn't have any.

The mother patiently said, "Missy, we'll be through this
checkout stand in five minutes and then you can go home and have
a bottle and a nice snooze."

The man followed them out to the parking lot and stopped the
woman to compliment her. "I couldn't help noticing how patient
you were with little Missy," he said.

The mother sighed and replied,
"Oh, no, my little girl's name is Francine,

I'm Missy.
7th Day Catholic Rocks

Poplar Bluff, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418757
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

YOU !!!!


http://www.youtube.com/embed/2h - WhhqFjv4feature=player_detailp age




YO


http://www.youtube.com/embed/2h-WhhqFjv4...



“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418758
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
God does not call "ANYONE" as a disciple, minister, preacher, or teacher to spread condenmation, judgment toward other Christians, and hostile hate against other brothers and sisters in Christ.
Matthew 12:33 "A tree is known by its fruit. A good tree produced good fruit. For a mans heart is determined by his speech. An evil hearted man is filled with venom and his speech reveals it. Your words of condemnation and judgment reflect your fate. Either you will justified by them or you will be condemned."
Galations 6:7 "Be not deceived for God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap!!
You, Confrinting--do not speak for God. God does not call condemning, and judgmental preachers and ministers to do his work of bringing dis-unity, division, and disharmony to the body of Christian followers and believers in Jesus Christ!!
~~~

If your Constantine-ism was Christian you might have a point...

But

since it is not...

you are a candidate for salvation.as is the rest of the ROMAN CATHOLICS ON EARTH...

OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE WITH CHRIST.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418759
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>Then the angels have erred in your world as well then huh because Hebrews chapter 1 gives a clear picture that the angels were told to worship Christ.
Do you take "Paul's" teaching over Jesus'?

How does anyone know "what the angels were told by God", if not present when the supposed direction occurred?

Why do you believe men?
ReginaM

Lakewood, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418760
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Truth wrote:
1 Thessalonians 5:27
27 I [[[CHARGE]]] you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters.
Revelation 1:3
3 Blessed is the one who [[[reads aloud]]] the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those [[[who hear it]]] and [[[take to heart]]] what is WRITTEN in it, because the time is near.
WHAT IS THE DIVINE INSTRUCTIONS OF THESE SCRIPTURES????
The divine instruction is "read," "hear," "read to," etc.
The scriptures, themselves, tell us what we need to know and understand.....
We are to read them OURSELVES.....
NO interpreter is necessary.
First of all, "this prophecy" refers to the Book of Revelation only. Secondly, the "one who reads aloud" would be the Church since she and only she was given the authority by Christ. The author of the Book of Revelation, St. John, is in the Church.*Not* every Tom, Dick, and Harry who decides on his own that *he* has authority (i.e. self-proclaimed paper popes). He doesn't and never will.

Thirdly, to hear implies oral teaching which is how the early Church spread the Gospel. Nothing was written, nothing was read. So according to your private interpretation above, those in the early Church weren't blessed!

Fourthly, you are attempting to use Revelation to trump Acts 8:26-40 which very clearly states we are *not* to interpret scripture privately but to go to those in authority, the Church...in this case St. Philip.

Too many errors, Hank. What you're proposing is not the faith taught by the apostles.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418761
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
You wrote
Your so-called ordination is invalid as it was not done by a successor of the apostles.
God called me as a Child and has directed my life for 78 years...
For you information God existed before the Apostles..or did you know that...
God's Church is as old as God is...
Peter did not invent it..nor was it built upon Peter.
The church existed in the wilderness...under Moses
Act_7:38 This is he, that was in
===>the church in the wilderness <==with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
You need to learn about God and forget your Constantine-ism...
God existed before the apostles, but you didn't. Your 'ordination', while probably exciting for you and impressive to your co-religionists, is not a valid ordination because you didn't receive it by a successor of the apostles.

Like I said, you may be good reader of the bible and a nice person to other pentecostals, but I'm sorry, you are not a real bishop.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418762
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Truth wrote:
How can one study and understand the Scriptures without making a private interpretation of Scripture?
Each person is responsible for himself.
Another person cannot decide or act for him/her.
Work out your OWN salvation....
Self.

Sounds ike you are coming around to what I've said ("Another person cannot decide or act for him/her.")

What changed your mind and took you so long?
7th Day Catholic Rocks

Poplar Bluff, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418763
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, "this prophecy" refers to the Book of Revelation only. Secondly, the "one who reads aloud" would be the Church since she and only she was given the authority by Christ. The author of the Book of Revelation, St. John, is in the Church.*Not* every Tom, Dick, and Harry who decides on his own that *he* has authority (i.e. self-proclaimed paper popes). He doesn't and never will.
Thirdly, to hear implies oral teaching which is how the early Church spread the Gospel. Nothing was written, nothing was read. So according to your private interpretation above, those in the early Church weren't blessed!
Fourthly, you are attempting to use Revelation to trump Acts 8:26-40 which very clearly states we are *not* to interpret scripture privately but to go to those in authority, the Church...in this case St. Philip.
Too many errors, Hank. What you're proposing is not the faith taught by the apostles.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.

The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.

Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.

http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-h...

During Christ time on earth the apostles where told not to take script on their journeys after his crucifixion then they were told to take script.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418764
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

marge wrote:
<quoted text>
That hardly ever happens where im from just the opposite, many many pasters sent out with the same Message of Truth.
They received the Truth from above for themselves, just like we taught them.
Interpretation from above.
Sorry marge, but confusion, disagreement and competition doesn't come 'from above', and protestantism is rife with it.

Within a few miles of my home there are at least 20 protestant communities all competing with each other for membership. I have seen a number of them change hands several times, each with a 'new and improved' message (and pastor, lol). Down the road is an old convenience store that's been taken over by one of these groups, you should see the billboards they put out every week. If I was a protestant searching for a new congregation my head would be spinning with all the options and differing messages.
ReginaM

Lakewood, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418765
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Truth wrote:
How can one study and understand the Scriptures without making a private interpretation of Scripture?
Each person is responsible for himself.
Another person cannot decide or act for him/her.
Work out your OWN salvation....
Your "private interpretation" differs from that of your protestant "brothers" and "sisters". Which of you is correct? Where did St. Paul say to sit at home with a book and work out your own salvation from it? What if your family interprets scripture differently than you do and decides that this or that command of Christ's isn't necessary? That seems like a pretty dirty trick on God's part. Gee, and what about all those early Christians who didn't have any bibles??!! Oy vey! Are they in big trouble or what?
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418766
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

duststorm wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Clay, I remember when you were a newcomer to this thread. Hope all is well with you.
The following truth should shake you to your core, if you can be brutally honest with yourself:
Peter was married. This fact alone should make you realize that if a prophet is wrong in one tiny aspect, he is a false prophet.
The supposed first pope was a humble disciple who had a wife and a mother-in-law.
Clay, this is serious. For once, please suspend your faith in the Roman Catholic hierarchyand its so-called infallible prophets, and turn, ever so slightly, in the direction of truth.
True, Peter was married. I don't think Christ would have asked Peter to get a divorce to follow Him...

I believe about 39 Popes were married and countless other Bishops.
Celibacy is a Catholic rule. Its Biblical, but not sacred Dogma. It could be changed by the Church at any given time. Maybe in my lifetime too.
Current Priests are married in the CC as well. I think the Church allows married Angelican clergy to convert and still be married.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418767
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, "this prophecy" refers to the Book of Revelation only. Secondly, the "one who reads aloud" would be the Church since she and only she was given the authority by Christ. The author of the Book of Revelation, St. John, is in the Church.*Not* every Tom, Dick, and Harry who decides on his own that *he* has authority (i.e. self-proclaimed paper popes). He doesn't and never will.
Thirdly, to hear implies oral teaching which is how the early Church spread the Gospel. Nothing was written, nothing was read. So according to your private interpretation above, those in the early Church weren't blessed!
Fourthly, you are attempting to use Revelation to trump Acts 8:26-40 which very clearly states we are *not* to interpret scripture privately but to go to those in authority, the Church...in this case St. Philip.
Too many errors, Hank. What you're proposing is not the faith taught by the apostles.
Your wrong Regina.
"Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"

Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and authorís intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If Godís commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satanís mouth, which they certainly did.

The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be savedĒ(Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesusí words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious.(See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one personís interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than anotherís? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is Godís Word to us and He meant it to be believedóliterally and completely.

gotquestions.ca
duststorm

League City, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418768
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
God existed before the apostles, but you didn't. Your 'ordination', while probably exciting for you and impressive to your co-religionists, is not a valid ordination because you didn't receive it by a successor of the apostles.
Like I said, you may be good reader of the bible and a nice person to other pentecostals, but I'm sorry, you are not a real bishop.
Anthony, you're still alive, thank goodness. Today is the day of salvation. Repent and believe, and I'll see you in heaven.
ReginaM

Lakewood, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418769
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
True, Peter was married. I don't think Christ would have asked Peter to get a divorce to follow Him...
I believe about 39 Popes were married and countless other Bishops.
Celibacy is a Catholic rule. Its Biblical, but not sacred Dogma. It could be changed by the Church at any given time. Maybe in my lifetime too.
Current Priests are married in the CC as well. I think the Church allows married Angelican clergy to convert and still be married.
Christ was celibate. I guess she doesn't "agree" with that. How vile. LOL!
duststorm

League City, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418770
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
True, Peter was married. I don't think Christ would have asked Peter to get a divorce to follow Him...
I believe about 39 Popes were married and countless other Bishops.
Celibacy is a Catholic rule. Its Biblical, but not sacred Dogma. It could be changed by the Church at any given time. Maybe in my lifetime too.
Current Priests are married in the CC as well. I think the Church allows married Angelican clergy to convert and still be married.
Seconds tick by. The minutes are fleeting. Hours, days, months turn into years.
Still, Clay gambles on the mercy of God not to allow him to expire this very day and his soul pass out into a lost eterntiy.
Clay

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418771
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
If your Constantine-ism was Christian you might have a point...
But
since it is not...
you are a candidate for salvation.as is the rest of the ROMAN CATHOLICS ON EARTH...
OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE WITH CHRIST.
Your baseless threats against our salvation is just that. Baseless.
You are no authority on scripture- no matter how many verses you memorized. Your threats might scare people in your congregation, but they fall flat against us. Christ gave us the Eucharist to protect us from self proclaimed preachers.
You'll need to look Our Lord in the eye and explain every soul you took away from his Church with your lies.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 403,501 - 403,520 of529,972
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••