Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 548,210
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419255 Jan 31, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you guys believe the Apostle James was Jesus's biological brother?
So far, you've only showed me your unauthoritative opinion.
I beleive that the Apostles thought so and that included Paul. now her is why only Sola Scripture should be addressed as the ONLY truth.

read this snippet.

Today we believe a canon of inspired writings is a necessity, but this was not so in the early days of the church. There was a strong oral and apostolic tradition within the early church. As mentioned earlier, the apostles and their associates were the human source of the "word of God" (Acts 4:29-31; 6:2-7; 11:1; 12:24; 13:46; et al.). Many of the early Christians remembered the apostles and their associates' teachings, teachings that were deeply imbedded in their minds. At first unity and lack of controversy within the church meant brethren did not have to constantly turn to a written Word to settle issues. By the middle of the first century, some uninformed individuals caused confusion about the relation of the Mosaic Law and Old Covenant to the Gospel and New Covenant. This issue was addressed by the apostles (Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, et al.). The apostles' effort largely corrected this problem, and the church was generally unified in doctrine. Also, writing and books were nothing like they are now. Today we generally think that for any idea to be authoritative, it must have come from a book, but this was not so in the early church.

and we see that oral teachings by those other than the Apsotles caused trouble and we now see that on this forum with you catholics believing everything that the vatican tells u

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419256 Jan 31, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you guys believe the Apostle James was Jesus's biological brother?
So far, you've only showed me your unauthoritative opinion.
BTW, what does that have to do with the fact that hahn playing now the part of Jerome was lying to you people.?

at that time James was not a believer unless you didnt know that.and it is very possible that you probably think that he was one of the original 12.

and if hahn did even a little research, he would have known why Jesus gave mary into the care of John, especially since those children were mentioned as being with her one time or another.

guess that he aint no where as intelligent as my big brother. OF COURSE I ALREADY KNEW THAT.

AND IF HIS iq IS 148, HE IS SMARTER THAN ME 2.LOL

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419257 Jan 31, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James the greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.
AND THERE IN LIES YOUR PROBLEM, i DONT FOLLOW DOCTRINE AND i DOUBT IF CHUCK IS EITHER. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE bIBLE. SO IF YOU WISH TO KNOW IF ANY APOSTLES Were RELATED TO HIM READ YOUR BIBLE AND FIND OUT. I did.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419258 Jan 31, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>iF jESUSS WAS WANTING TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT WOMAN BEING THE CHURCH, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.
sinc e he started out speaking to the letters to different churches.
so if the rcc believes it is mary, no wonder you people dont know anything about the bible, you allow them to tell you what you think, just like clay showed
Don't tell me, tell your sola scriptura protestant brethren who disagree with you.

Every city "church" is part of THE Church. There is only ONE Church, a concept protestants just can't seem to grasp.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419259 Jan 31, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James Tthe greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.
OK, I feel sorry for you and to help you leanr some truth, the answer is none of them.

however you tossed in a name that wasnt an apostle but who indeed was the brother of Jesus and that is Jude.

here are the names.

Simon Peter; Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus; Labbaeus, who was surnamed Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite; Judas Iscariot, in whose stead came in Matthias.

and the names of the brothers are these.

brothers names were, James, Joses(also spelled joseph), Simon and Judas(also spelled jude and judah, and they are all pronouced the same)so you can see why they might be confused with being different people.

First, I thought it would be interesting to look up a little about Jude. Jude is the English form of the name Judas (loudas), the Greek form of Judah, which literally means “to give thanks, or praise”. The English version of the name is used in most versions of the Bible to disassociate Jude from Judas Iscariot. Most theologians agree that Jude was a half-brother to Jesus, as he was spoken of in Matt. 13:55:“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mothers name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”

Verse 1:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, to those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:”

The first verse starts out:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James”.... It is thought that Jude was probably being humble because he did not believe that his own half-brother, Jesus, was the Messiah during His earthly days (nor did his other brothers - John 7:5).

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419260 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't tell me, tell your sola scriptura protestant brethren who disagree with you.
Every city "church" is part of THE Church. There is only ONE Church, a concept protestants just can't seem to grasp.
nice try to deflect, I aint talking to them you are the person trying to tell us that it is mary.lol.

have you ever heard of the word [harmonize}? that is what you need to find out who this is relating to and the dream of Joseph is the key to your understanding, not the vatican nor hahn. the Bible.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419261 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't tell me, tell your sola scriptura protestant brethren who disagree with you.
Every city "church" is part of THE Church. There is only ONE Church, a concept protestants just can't seem to grasp.
but that church is not the roman catholic church. the only church is made up of Born Again Chrsitians, no matter where they go to church.

but I do agree that YOUR church is mentioned in the Book of revelation, which is why your church has tried its best to discredit the Book written by john. to a businessman like yourself, the only thing that matters in the bottom line, so you need to figure it out who that church is, the answer is obvious
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#419262 Jan 31, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James Tthe greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.
Clay

I'm wondering how many times does Preston have to post something to you before you get it? Post after post after post and you still don't get it.

**And he's right..we don't follow doctrines..
RCC Superiority So BUSTED

Melbourne, FL

#419263 Jan 31, 2013
The net widens.

"LA Catholic Church Abuse Files: Archdiocese Gives Up On Fight To Redact Names."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/la-c...

Jesus did NOT appoint nor does Jesus guide anything related to the RCC.

Jesus has NOTHING to do with the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

Jesus is not behind the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

Jesus would never lend His name to the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

In the Bible, Jesus clearly states what should happen to those behind the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

This is no way to save souls.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419264 Jan 31, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I beleive that the Apostles thought so and that included Paul. now her is why only Sola Scripture should be addressed as the ONLY truth.
read this snippet.
Today we believe a canon of inspired writings is a necessity, but this was not so in the early days of the church. There was a strong oral and apostolic tradition within the early church. As mentioned earlier, the apostles and their associates were the human source of the "word of God" (Acts 4:29-31; 6:2-7; 11:1; 12:24; 13:46; et al.). Many of the early Christians remembered the apostles and their associates' teachings, teachings that were deeply imbedded in their minds. At first unity and lack of controversy within the church meant brethren did not have to constantly turn to a written Word to settle issues. By the middle of the first century, some uninformed individuals caused confusion about the relation of the Mosaic Law and Old Covenant to the Gospel and New Covenant. This issue was addressed by the apostles (Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, et al.). The apostles' effort largely corrected this problem, and the church was generally unified in doctrine. Also, writing and books were nothing like they are now. Today we generally think that for any idea to be authoritative, it must have come from a book, but this was not so in the early church.
and we see that oral teachings by those other than the Apsotles caused trouble and we now see that on this forum with you catholics believing everything that the vatican tells u
John wrote that "as ye have heard that antichrist shall come.... They went out from us" (I John 2:18, 19). After the apostolic times,[God knew these antichrists would question the authority of certain of the writings that did not agree with their ideas, leading to the need to clarify which books were inspired.[AND WE SEE THAT NOW]

The preceding factors no doubt contributed to the apostles' writing the Gospels and Epistles, and the early Christians and church's bringing them together in a canon. But there is another factor. The work of the Holy Spirit was the chief cause of bringing God's Word into a written record. It was His activity working in the ordinary circumstances of the apostles' lives that resulted in the written Word being preserved for all subsequent generations.

The written Word quickly received a place of high significance; those who received it gave it special status because they knew it was the message they heard from the apostles. We have evidence that the written Word was very early placed on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul's letters were read in church gatherings with the same authority as Old Testament Scriptures (Col. 4:16. I Thess. 5:27). Peter was aware of Paul's letters to the churches and classed his letter with the Scriptures (II Peter 3:15). John presupposed that his Book of the Revelation would be read as other Scriptures (Rev. 1:3).

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419265 Jan 31, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Mary is our mother. Those who follow her Son are her offspring.
Don't debate the meaning of this Chuck, you don't have the authority.
and you aint got the brains, it seems. Jesus was never married and so He never had any children,

you people got to tell one lie after another to try and catch up.lol
Clay

United States

#419266 Jan 31, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I feel sorry for you and to help you leanr some truth, the answer is none of them.
however you tossed in a name that wasnt an apostle but who indeed was the brother of Jesus and that is Jude.
here are the names.
Simon Peter; Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus; Labbaeus, who was surnamed Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite; Judas Iscariot, in whose stead came in Matthias.
and the names of the brothers are these.
brothers names were, James, Joses(also spelled joseph), Simon and Judas(also spelled jude and judah, and they are all pronouced the same)so you can see why they might be confused with being different people.
First, I thought it would be interesting to look up a little about Jude. Jude is the English form of the name Judas (loudas), the Greek form of Judah, which literally means “to give thanks, or praise”. The English version of the name is used in most versions of the Bible to disassociate Jude from Judas Iscariot. Most theologians agree that Jude was a half-brother to Jesus, as he was spoken of in Matt. 13:55:“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mothers name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”
Verse 1:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, to those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:”
The first verse starts out:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James”.... It is thought that Jude was probably being humble because he did not believe that his own half-brother, Jesus, was the Messiah during His earthly days (nor did his other brothers - John 7:5).
So why wouldn't Jesus entrust Mary with her other son, Jude?
Your assumption that his 'brothers and sisters' didn't believe He was the Messiah is not quite right. They believed He was the Jewish version of the Messiah. And frankly, many of His closest Apostles didn't understand what kinda Messiah He was either, until He rose.
By the way, why are you the authority on these Sacred Writings?

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#419267 Jan 31, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
So why wouldn't Jesus entrust Mary with her other son, Jude?
Your assumption that his 'brothers and sisters' didn't believe He was the Messiah is not quite right. They believed He was the Jewish version of the Messiah. And frankly, many of His closest Apostles didn't understand what kinda Messiah He was either, until He rose.
By the way, why are you the authority on these Sacred Writings?
I gave you the verse that shows that his brotehrs didnt believe in him and you still are trying to argue with me.

For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Jude was the youngest and the estate would fall to the eldest and that would include actually providing a stipend for mary.

as far as me being an authority, all i can tell you is this. I seem to know more than all of you catholics on here combined. and that saddens me, it really does, to think that people are not able to reason for themselves but must adhere to what their church tells them and they are not allowed to think for themselves, as you just stated the other day
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#419268 Jan 31, 2013
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Tony???
You're better than that
No he isn't
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419269 Jan 31, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>nice try to deflect, I aint talking to them you are the person trying to tell us that it is mary.lol.
have you ever heard of the word [harmonize}? that is what you need to find out who this is relating to and the dream of Joseph is the key to your understanding, not the vatican nor hahn. the Bible.
Well, I would have assumed that you literalists would want to be consistent and see the woman who "brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.." as Jesus's mother.

I guess you only take the bible literally when you see fit.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

#419270 Jan 31, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>reg is being just alittle deceitful it also means [NAY, BUT RATHER]. AND THAT IS THE USAGE IN THE BIBLE.
He replied, "Blessed [rather[ are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Thanks Preston
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#419271 Jan 31, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>and you aint got the brains, it seems. Jesus was never married and so He never had any children,
you people got to tell one lie after another to try and catch up.lol
Once again I need remind you to either read my posts carefully before you respond or have someone read them to you.
truth

Perth, Australia

#419272 Jan 31, 2013
every spirit is not holy
i am not to much care..not at all
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#419273 Jan 31, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
You are taught how to be a good catholic Anthony, and what you must believe to be one.
You were not taught the things of God, and how to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
In the Catholic Church; God it seems is the last person you go to
when it should be the very first.
There is the Priest, the Pope, Mary and other dead saints, whom you ask to go to God for you. That is sad.
Jesus dead to reconcile man with God. So we can go boldly to the throne of God, and talk to Him personaly Anthony.
He doesn't want you to rely your messages and concerns through other people.
How would you like it if your children did that to you, Anthony.
Its terrible how the catholic church teaches you to fear the very person who loves you the most.
There has been much discussion on these vary points you make.

Today young people in greater numbers are becoming more spiritual than religious, and do not seek the authority of any church but have a personal relationship with whatever God they worship.
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#419274 Jan 31, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, I've stopped laughing (for the time being).
Do you know what the word 'beatitude' means? Do you know that it is a proper noun, as in the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount, but is also just a 'plain old noun' and is used in Christian theology as such, and has been for 2,000 years?
III. CHRISTIAN BEATITUDE
1720 The New Testament uses several expressions to characterize the beatitude to which God calls man:
- the coming of the Kingdom of God;16 - the vision of God: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"17
- entering into the joy of the Lord;18
- entering into God's rest:19
There we shall rest and see, we shall see and love, we shall love and praise. Behold what will be at the end without end. For what other end do we have, if not to reach the kingdom which has no end?20
1721 God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise. Beatitude makes us "partakers of the divine nature" and of eternal life.21 With beatitude, man enters into the glory of Christ22 and into the joy of the Trinitarian life.
1722 Such beatitude surpasses the understanding and powers of man. It comes from an entirely free gift of God: whence it is called supernatural, as is the grace that disposes man to enter into the divine joy.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." It is true, because of the greatness and inexpressible glory of God, that "man shall not see me and live," for the Father cannot be grasped. But because of God's love and goodness toward us, and because he can do all things, he goes so far as to grant those who love him the privilege of seeing him.... For "what is impossible for men is possible for God."23
1723 The beatitude we are promised confronts us with decisive moral choices. It invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive...
One example of the use of the word 'beatitude'.
From the LA times yesterday.....

....A first round of 14 priest files made public in Los Angeles nearly two weeks ago showed that recently retired Cardinal Roger Mahony and other top officials maneuvered behind the scenes to shield molester priests, provide damage control for the church and keep parishioners in the dark about sexual abuse in their parishes. Those documents, released as part of an unrelated civil lawsuit, were not redacted and provided a glimpse of what could be contained in the larger release expected no later than Feb. 22.

Michael says......so what do you think of retired Cardinal Mahoney who kept the parishioners in the dark of sexually abusive clergy, to shield molesting priests to protect the church, as catholics continued filling the collection baskets at every mass? My My!

This story is about to EXX-P-L-O-D-E!!! 30,000 pages of confidential documents about to become known.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/la-c...

Wake up catholics! You have been made fools of too many times........stop the SILENCE and start demanding answers. Remember you pay ALL the bills of the church. You are in control.

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
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 1 hr Mr SIr 8,506
Pope Francis leaves the beatification ceremony ... 2 hr Miss New Thing 3
Selfies with Pope Francis cardboard cutouts pop... Sat 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
The Pope's Criticism Of Capitalism Has One Weal... (Jan '14) Oct 10 QUITTNER Oct 10 2014 8

Pope Benedict XVI People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE