Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Jul 10, 2007 Read more: CBC News 582,913
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Read more
marge

Ames, IA

#421231 Feb 9, 2013
2 Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Praise God!
Clay

United States

#421232 Feb 9, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, again you just make up as you go.
Luther sided with the first 1600 years of Christianity.
The Apocrypha was never considered scripture by the Early Church.
You also now are out and out lying as the council of TRENT did not clarify but CANONIZED Apocrypha books that previously had never been Canonized by any Council previously.
By the way I was confirmed as a Lutheran. The Lutheran Bible never removed them Luther's Bible included them as did my conformation bible and they were considered as in the day of the early church valuable and useful for study in many ways but never considered equal to the other books as the inerrant word of God to be used for teaching Doctrine or Theology you know the study of God.
From http://carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture
to save time.
Church Fathers
Did the Church fathers recognized the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.
So Luther shared the same view as the translator of the Latin Vulgate.
He is in good company.
yes I'm already aware of the historical scenario you been taught. Is it factual? Nope.

The Council of Tent did NOT determine CC canon.
Those books were already used as inspired texts.
The Council CLARIFIED Sacred texts.
You think Luther had the authority to determine The New Testament? ha, that's nuts.

Read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls. What did those 'turn of the millennium Jews' have in their possession? The book of Tobit among others.

The official Jewish canon did NOT happen until after Christianity. Luther left that part out when he deceive y'all.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#421233 Feb 9, 2013
231
marge wrote:
2 Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Praise God!
What message to you see in the Scripture quoted that prompted "Praise God"????
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#421234 Feb 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't confuse the early Christians with modern day Evangelicals.
The Bible (to them) was the Hebrew books. Not the various letters and memoirs of The Apostles. Those did not yet become part of The Bible.
The Apostles were convinced Christ was coming back in their lifetime. They would never have thought to compile their writings into a Bible.
The Roman Catholic Church decided to do just that in the 4th and 5th century.
Your Man made RCC argument is quite flawed.

If we are to carry your man made logic to its logical conclusion they never would of wrote anything down if they thought Jesus was coming back (second coming) in there life time. But there is no Biblical or early Church evidence to believe that they did believe the second coming was going to happen in their life times.

YOU see unlike you the Apostles Knew the OT inside and out.

They knew Apocalyptic writings sayings when they read or heard them.

You see the NT and the Apostles taught of the Coming of the Lord and the Second coming of the Messsiah.

If you knew the difference you would not make the error you just posted.

They believed the Coming of the Lord was imminent as Jesus taught in Matt 23 and John in Revelation.

AS in the OT the coming of the LORD was God's wrath and Judgement and it came in their generation in 70 AD when Israel was sacked and God allowed the Romans to lay Siege to Jerusalem for 3 !/2 years and when it was finished not one stone of the temple stood on another.

The coming of the Lord and the Second Coming are two different events, back to bible school for Clay.

You would do well to stop spewing your indoctrination brain washed teachings of the RCC now and go study the Bible.

Truth Matters
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#421235 Feb 9, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
The short of it Saban we are saved by faith not of works less anyone should boost.

Nothing we do even getting baptized in water saves us.
It is a works we do, we are saved by the works of Jesus Christ, on the cross for the remission of our sins
If we could save our selfs by being baptized in water Jesus would not have had to die on the cross.

When does a person repent?? an unsaved person won't repent and an unsaved person would not get baptized.

Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin , Remission is used to translate the Greek word of the Scriptures, pronounced af-es-is, which means freedom, particularly after a pardon.

repentance and remission of sins"

The remission of sins is made possible only by and through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
Peter preached repentance for the remission of sins:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38 KJV)
truth

Perth, Australia

#421236 Feb 9, 2013
SHUT UP..pool yourself for ear 3x 7x 77x 144x..every words is not coming from God.

log is not mother Mary milk=pool yourself for your trepavice 3x 7x 77x 777x 144 x

how many lord you have
how many gods you have..

''love''

don't have another God
love your god with your heart
truth

Perth, Australia

#421237 Feb 9, 2013
Are you for sure silver gold and wood not burning?

I stay upon sun and look big fire ball..no..who told you its hot..nooooo liars..i don't fill hot or burn

i walk its frozen they sleep many many bags..
but i don't fill cold not at all
i return..they sleep..me no i talk and walk but i am alive and return..

Why is like that?
truth

Perth, Australia

#421238 Feb 9, 2013
izmisljotino izmisljotino izmisljotino prodi me se..
Where is that izmisljotina..innovation ''in''?

''n''
an en in on un..

imisljotina say on 3x ''in''oh dear oh dear oh dear
in dia ..''r'' separate..
where is your intellect in tell lect
tell ctel=lesct
tell= c tell

ha ha ha ha ha
from nothing something=izmisljotina
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#421239 Feb 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
yes I'm already aware of the historical scenario you been taught. Is it factual? Nope.
The Council of Tent did NOT determine CC canon.
Those books were already used as inspired texts.
The Council CLARIFIED Sacred texts.
You think Luther had the authority to determine The New Testament? ha, that's nuts.
Read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls. What did those 'turn of the millennium Jews' have in their possession? The book of Tobit among others.
The official Jewish canon did NOT happen until after Christianity. Luther left that part out when he deceive y'all.
Let me show you how I now you are dis-indigenous and sooner make up straw men then debate in good faith and Honor.

I never said Luther had any Authority to determine the Canon as I posted to you he affirmed 1600 years of Christian History and he shared the View of so many Greats even the Man that gave us the Vulgate, Luther Shared the same Belief as Jerome.

I do not believe the OT of the Jews but of Jesus.
for sake of time

from again http://carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture

Jesus' references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,í" (Luke 11:51).

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."1
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.

Jesus references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms

Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the Apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," (Luke 24:44).
So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid as their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings" it would not include the Apocrypha for the above-mentioned reasons.
truth

Perth, Australia

#421240 Feb 9, 2013
now you liked eat me..don't you
smuch smach smech smich shmoc smuch
s much
s=c co 13
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
$ much=how much
Pad

Rockford, IL

#421241 Feb 9, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
The Article says:
Suppose you could survey the people who live in the hundred homes nearest to your own house on the subject of Christian baptism. What kind of answer would you get in response to this question: "How should a person be baptized in order to meet the Bible requirements of salvation?"
It is likely that you would get a dozen different answers, and possibly even a hundred. Some would say that they don't believe it is necessary to be baptized at all to be saved. Others would answer that true baptism is to go forward three times completely under the water. Some would contend that a few drops of sprinkled water on the head would constitute a valid baptism, while others would insist on pouring the water over the candidate. A few would strongly hold that a proper baptism consists of a single immersion backwards into the water.
Somehow the subject of baptism has spawned a plethora of ideas on how it should be administered, and to whom. Yet, all believe that their method is based on the one book of authority - the Bible. How could this confusion of conviction result from reading the same book?"
Then Joe Schmo gives his infallible opinion. lol Protestants are all over the place and here is another with the real deal. It never ends with them. The Spam from LTM who presents her infallible author from gotquestions It never ends with Protestants each with their own personal truth.
And the epitome of a distorted view of baptism is Infant baptism plain and simple.It is ridiculous,and it serves no purpose to sprinkle water on the head of an infant as in an initiation.Baptism is NOT an initiation,it is what believers do after repentance.READ the Bible,Oh I forgot Dust Storm,Tradition comes first doesn't it?
truth

Perth, Australia

#421242 Feb 9, 2013
envy lust pride is not love
you judge me as envy sloth as pride as evil
Pad

Rockford, IL

#421243 Feb 9, 2013
truth wrote:
http://www.google.com.au/searc h?q=jesus+christ+wounds&hl =en&tbo=d&source=lnms &tbm=isch&sa=X&ei= 8goXUeDuN5CkiQeqmYDoCQ&ved =0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1472& bih=705#imgrc=gK3QpLAPq4FKhM%3 A%3BG9d-rvKvwF1WiM%3Bhttp%253A %252F%252Fwww.rosaryandchaplet s.com%252Fchaplets%252Fseven_w ounds.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%25 2Fwww.rosaryandchaplets.com%25 2Fchaplets%252Fseven_wounds_pr ayer.html%3B318%3B594
pray for pad..he or she don't liked rosary
http://www.google.com.au/search...
Did you pray mum..please mum don't tell anyone..he not pray no..but god know why he left over him..mum did you pray..yes mum pray.
Thank you for your prayers,even if they are wrong or misguided,they are heard,and the Lord is able to sort out what is true,and heart felt.Bless your heart truth.I find no reason to start praying the rosary,after the experiences I have had in the Lord,it is clear to me that to recite the rosary is for those who believe that Mary is the mediatrix between Jesus and human kind.

It would be wrong for me to pray the rosary,because I would be a hypocrite if I did,since praying to Mary is not part of my prayer life.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#421244 Feb 9, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know you were saved?
How do you know you were filled with the Holy Ghost? Did you begin speaking in languages you'd never learned?
Why were you baptized?
Where do you find examples in scripture of conversions that happened in the same sequence as yours?
how did I KNOW that I was saved. the answer is obvious, I felt the Blood of jesus as it cleansed my soul.

Howe did I know that I was filled with the Holy Ghost.
the answer again is easy to tell. my body could not hold any more water afer it came gushing out of my belly.
did i speak in other langiages. NOPE, NEVER DID, AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL.

WHY WAS i BAPTISEED, BECAUSE THAT WAS GODS WILL IN MY SPIRITUAL WALK WITH HIM.

WHERE DO i FIND EXAMPLES? IN THE bIBLE. PEOPLE CALLED ON THE LORD AND WERE sAVED, THEN THEY WERE FILLED WITH THE hOLY GHOST AND AFTER THAT THEY WERE bAPTISED IN WATER. JUST LIKE ME.LOL.

MY HOLY GHOST EXPEIRENCE CAN ALSO BE FOUND IN SCRIPTURES. JOHN CHAPER 7 VERSES 37-39. READ THEM AND WEEP. MY CAMBELLITE "new friend" as robert f says.lol
Pad

Rockford, IL

#421245 Feb 10, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Salvation came from God by Grace it was a gift,
A works is something we do like getting baptized in water.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is something God does to us, that is what equips us to do the works God has predestined before time.
If water baptism saved us , the man on the cross wouldn't have gone to Heaven with Jesus .
Jesus would not make an exception for anyone, the theif on the cross eyes were opened, He said to Jesus remember me when you come into your Kingdom He believe Jesus was the savior of his soul.
Jesus said you will be with me in Paradise this day.
He was baptised by the Holy Spirit to beable to have the truth in His heart.
Jesus said that to Peter , who do you say I am Peter stated you are the son of the true living God.
Jesus told Peter only the Holy Spirit could reveal that truth to him.
ON the Spirit of Truth Jesus is building His Spirit filled Spirit Lead Holy Church.
One soul at a time, Jesus isn't through building when He is He will come again.
LTM,using the line that the thief on the cross did not need baptism for salvation,is a mute point,he could not have come down off of that cross to receive water baptism.He was facing execution or dying on that cross,his legs were later broken to ensure his death. Hardly a time or place for the poor man to be baptized.

Baptism is part of the process of repentance as it were.When one repents they are seeking Christ's only remedy for salvation,HIMSELF(crucified,sh ed blood,dying,and RESSURECTION). Baptism is the physical response in believing that Christ died for our sins,as we go down into the water in BURIAL.It is ludicrous that any believer who is able to be baptized that they should not follow through after repentance,or a time given for such.

The B i b l e baptism in water is truly what we need to complete as it were that command of Christ to be born of the water and the Spirit.Water-Baptism,Spirit-Re pentance,and Conversion. Just because Jesus said the water first does not mean we should be baptized as infants.The Book of ACTS always describes the believers as believing,repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins.

Infant baptism in the light of the Scriptures as stated in the Book of Acts of the Apostles is like putting the cart before the horse.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#421246 Feb 10, 2013
truth wrote:
Who is light Paul or Jesus?
Naturally JESUS.The fact that the Apostle Paul is quoted so much,is that he authored a big part of the New Testament with his epistles. Are we to disregard what he says? NO.Paul had an insight into the things of God because the Lord gave that gift to him.Why did the early church place so many of Paul's epistles in the Bible?
truth

Perth, Australia

#421247 Feb 10, 2013
why you seek satanic kingdom..

Rosary will help you
who posses kingdom..

Someone who fall down
possessors as well deceivers
are not CREATOR.

How many Lords or God exist Pad?

Are you Creator Pad?

Did you fill shame say yes if are you not?

Could you forgive to child which belong to real God Creator or you judge and rest accuse as well abuse rights on life.
Did Lord do that?

If you not Creator did you fill shame yes i am?!

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#421248 Feb 10, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>Amen
John Baptizes Jesus
13Then came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized by him.
14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized by you, and come you to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Permit it to be so now:........(for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.......... Then he permitted him.
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up immediately out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
I guess AtemCowboy lied again saying he knows your a Cambellite of course this is way of implying God revealed it to him.
guess that you got caught in another lie,lol here is my post to this person and at no time did I indicate that he was a campbellite, but I did call mr saban a campbellite but he has already acknowledges that he belongs to the coc.when are you going to learn to rein in your hatred and get saved?

atemcowboy

Since: Jan 08

4,723

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply Ľ
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#421178 3 hrs ago
Judged:
2
2
2
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you get baptized? Great! Me too, about 14 years ago.
Here's a little book why baptism is needed..
ē Baptism: Is It really Necessary?
http://abc.eznettools.net/mobxpozd/baptism.ht ...

ME;

yes, of course, I got Baptised. nine months and three days after I was Saved, and nine months and one day after I was baptised with the Holy Ghost.just to inform everyone, I believe that when a person gets saved they receive the Spirit of Christ, this is different than Being Baptised in the Holy Ghost.

NOT A WORD ABOUT ME CALLING HIM A CAMPBELLITE BUT I SURE KNEW THAT YOU WERE A SDA.LOL
Pad

Rockford, IL

#421249 Feb 10, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't confuse the early Christians with modern day Evangelicals.
The Bible (to them) was the Hebrew books. Not the various letters and memoirs of The Apostles. Those did not yet become part of The Bible.
The Apostles were convinced Christ was coming back in their lifetime. They would never have thought to compile their writings into a Bible.
The Roman Catholic Church decided to do just that in the 4th and 5th century.
Thank God the Bible was compiled,if it was not,we would still be seeing souls crawling on their knees bloodied and torn,hoping that God would forgive them of their sins.Luther was appauled when he went to Rome and saw the poor being mortified in order to gain favor with God.In Luther's time the RCC sold indulgenses that varied in payment with who could afford such and such to gain a good spot in heaven.The Bible must have been written in books or scrolls,as Luther and other priests knew the New Testament.

Why is it that after the first century so much that is not in the Bible was practised,including mortification for sin and appeasement,the belief that if you wear such and such your time in purgatory will be short.If you say the rosary often or daily,Mary will answer your prayers,"devotion to our Lady,"which basically is not Scriptural. So much we cannot even touch the surface.It goes on and on,BUT we know for a fact that only Jesus saves by His precious Blood,and that in Christ we have our being.

I tremble at the thought of what would have happened if people like Luther did not confront the heresy purpetrated by the Papacy in his day.It seems to me God in Christ decided that enough was enough,His death and Resurrrection was not in vain.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#421250 Feb 10, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
One of the greatest benefits afforded to every Christian is the privilege of answered prayers. In the Bible, Jesus made this tremendous promise,ďAnd whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receiveĒ(Matt 21:22). However, despite the Lordís willingness to answer prayer, it is obvious that some prayers have gone unanswered.
Why is this? The following are the most common reasons why some prayers do not get results:
1. Lack of Fellowship with God and His word
2. Not seeking to Please the Lord
3. Unconfessed Sin in Oneís Life
4. Improper Motives
5. Not asking in Godís will
6. Donít know how to pray
7. Lack of Faith
8. Misunderstanding of Faith
9. Wavering faith
10. Failure to apply spiritual Authority
11. Lack of Perseverance
Powerful,truth,undeniably frank.

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 United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 2 hr SeekingTruth 9,177
News Armenian Genocide: Turkey To Convert Hagia Sofi... 5 hr Chuck 4
News Turkey disappointed with Pope's Armenian 'genoc... 22 hr Erkek Turk 19
News Turkish Leaders Invoke Crusades, Inquisition in... Sat Chuck 22
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) Sat dollarsbill 84,037
News St. Peter's overflows for historic day of 4 popes (Apr '14) Apr 16 ELIAS IBARRA 51
News Pope calls Armenian slaughter '1st genocide of ... Apr 15 SpaceBlues 3
More from around the web