Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 603437 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#422090 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
?
Who said that the Church supplanted scripture?
Saban, you still have work to do, but mainly with reading comprehension. Even Mosies Peneda would have read the post more effectively than you, and he's Peruvian.
Therefore saying: "His Church on Earth to teach His message until the end of time" effectively means that the Catholic church has hijacked Christ's church as we read about in the first century. It is now de-railed and the Church is the authority of the message rather than The Word.

Hallelujah! Stop the Thread! We agree!!

Golly, you're going to have me doing Hail Mary's!! Joy, joy, joy!

HAPPY
HAPPY
HAPPY.

The truth of the matter has been found.:)

My work is done.
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#422091 Feb 12, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Since scripture does not come labeled, it would be contradictory to claim sola scripture when in fact, you just relied on something outside of scripture to even know its scripture in the first place!
The Bible alone theory is flawed from the word go.
Although I admire anyone who picks up the Holy Bible to encounter Christ, and I'm sure you experience the grace of God for doing so, you can't be the authority on its teachings.
Remember, we're not stopping you from reading your bible and being the best Christian possible. But we are stopping you from turning around and using the words of the Bible against the very Church upon which it came.
But it is SO EASY because the Apostasy has come so far...

I feel joy in my heart knowing that it is only Catholic traditions you can use to prove my religion wrong rather than God's Word.
Clay

United States

#422092 Feb 12, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is SO EASY because the Apostasy has come so far...
I feel joy in my heart knowing that it is only Catholic traditions you can use to prove my religion wrong rather than God's Word.
Actually, even if we were to use the Bible alone..Catholicism still stands up against anyone who also use Bible alone. I wasn't kidding when I said Catholicism is so deep rooted and entwined with scripture, that on the surface, its not always blatantly easy to see.
One Dogma (the bodily Assumption of Mary) is definitely not blatantly there in scripture. On this one, we rely on the Holy Spirit to connect the dots for us. Its the same Holy Spirit that has guided the Church when they had no Bible but the Hebrew Books. Its a valid dogma when we look at the whole of the Bible and not verse chapter verse.
Saban fan

Mobile, AL

#422093 Feb 12, 2013
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under Godís curse!" (Gal. 1:8)

Yet, Catholics tell me they can have Scripture, and the "teachings of the Church", and their sacred tradition as the foundation of their faith.

Do Paul's words sound like the teachings would ever change or be amended? Who is the "WE" he is speaking of when he says IF EVEN WE OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN?

And these Catholics have the nerve to tell me that it is unscriptural for my teaching to be scripturally based alone. They claim I need the teachings of the Church and their sacred tradition to go along with scripture. Those things came along AFTER Paul spoke these words to the Christians in Galatia. These people on this thread are not even Paul or the Angel from Heaven. Why should anyone believe them and their Apostasy?

Isn't this a reasonable verse for me to believe that the Bible alone can give me all the instruction I will ever need to know about going to Heaven and how Christ's church should operate?

Christ's church is the true church.(Rom. 16:16b) not the Catholic church. Paul even says, "let them be under God's curse." (Gal. 1:8b)

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#422094 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Ii cited it.
Where have you been?
12 Rev, John 14:3
Keep up please. You already told me I was wrong about the interpretation, I think.
WE AGREE THAT THAT SCRIPTURE IS IN THE bIBLE, NOW YOU PROVE TO US THAT THIS IS MARY THAT jOHN AND jESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT SINCE BOTH KNEW HER.LOL
Clay

United States

#422095 Feb 12, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under Godís curse!" (Gal. 1:8)
Yet, Catholics tell me they can have Scripture, and the "teachings of the Church", and their sacred tradition as the foundation of their faith.
Do Paul's words sound like the teachings would ever change or be amended? Who is the "WE" he is speaking of when he says IF EVEN WE OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN?
And these Catholics have the nerve to tell me that it is unscriptural for my teaching to be scripturally based alone. They claim I need the teachings of the Church and their sacred tradition to go along with scripture. Those things came along AFTER Paul spoke these words to the Christians in Galatia. These people on this thread are not even Paul or the Angel from Heaven. Why should anyone believe them and their Apostasy?
Isn't this a reasonable verse for me to believe that the Bible alone can give me all the instruction I will ever need to know about going to Heaven and how Christ's church should operate?
Christ's church is the true church.(Rom. 16:16b) not the Catholic church. Paul even says, "let them be under God's curse." (Gal. 1:8b)
You just answered your question if you examine it.

Paul is writing to the Church that is in communion with the Apostles. He is not addressing Martin Luther. He is not addressing John Calvin, Confrinting, Preston, Harold Camping, nor you and the other 42,000 groups today.
There were heretics in his day too. He doesn't write broad letters to the people so they can 'figure out their own Christianity'. He is writing the Catholic Churches in Gal, Romans, Corinthians...

Gal 1:8 "but even if we or an Angel in Heaven preach another gospel other then the one we have preached to you, let them be under Gods curse"
This letter is to the Church and the Bishops the Apostles ordained. It is NOT a personal letter to you.
Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#422096 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
They all believed in kind.
This isn't a denominational reference, Saban.
These early Christians were Catholic as you and I understand it.
Yeh.

This is actually on-topic for the thread, believe it or not.

It involves the use of the word "church," as it was used in the papal statement that was misused to start this particular hydra.

A "church" in this usage would be an "ecclesial coomunity presided over by someone with authority from Jesus."

In the earliest churches, that would be apostles.

After the apostles, that cam to be known as episkopos - "guardian," "overseer," "bishop."

All the churches referred to in the verse would have had someone appointed by the apostles, or appointed by someone appointed by the apostles, etc.

They were "true churches," just as the pope referred to in the document.

Other communities would not be "true churches," (not meaning "false churches," but rather, something not best described by the term "church." They were faith communities, and they may have had the fullness of apostolic faith and doctrine, but if they lacked a bishop, they were not, strictly speaking, a church.

Perhaps better than "The Baptist church is not a true church" would ge "The Baptist church is not actually a diocese in any sense of the word, and thus not, strictly speaking, a "church," but a "faith community."

The same would be said of "The Franciscan Order," or "The Knights of Columbus." These are not true churches, even though they might ahow many elements that would also be found in a church community. But they do not have a bishop in line with the apostles, and so are not truly "churches."

In no way does the verse refer to denominations, with people all disagreeing with each other over doctrine, andelevatingthemselves to levels of authority (a la The Tower of Babel), but faith coomunities united to the faith of the apostles, and under apostlic leadership and teaching.

They were, and are the true "Church of Christ," and had nothing to do with the American counterfeit one which has presumed to take this for its institutional formal name.

Rob
Clay

United States

#422097 Feb 12, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Romans 16:16b
"All the churches of Christ send greetings."
All the "Churches of Christ" were later called Universal or Catholic. The earliest known document is from 110 AD. And the title was used so casual then, that one could imply that it was a title already in use before that.
Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#422098 Feb 12, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
When I speak about the authority of scripture you tell me this: "Catholics do NOT believe that ONLY the Bible informs their faith"
Where is the authority in scripture if it is not all I need?
What did God miss in scripture that I should be aware of?
.
A table of contents.

Rob

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#422099 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you didn't-it barely rose above "speculative".
Sorry - speculation leading to an affirmative "dogma" on the part of men is bullshite to begin with - "bogus".
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say a thing about "Less than six of the original 13 Apostles".
That's because I did. You see, Christianity has caused you and many others to beleive what men put in front of them, without questioning its validity.

Your team chose LESS THAN SIX of the original 13 Apostles to be the "faith" and focus of belief and faith.

It isn't my fault you only accept the half of Jesus' teachings that don't mean squat, except for teh gullible, uninformed.

BTW - this all falls under "Self" and the ability it tries to shine forth. But you refuse to see it this way.
Clay

United States

#422100 Feb 12, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is SO EASY because the Apostasy has come so far...
I feel joy in my heart knowing that it is only Catholic traditions you can use to prove my religion wrong rather than God's Word.
Again, you're relying on the authority of the Catholic Church at Rome, that compiled those letters, memoirs and Prophecies into a Bible and authoritatively added it to the 46 books of the Jewish scriptures.(7 more than the official Jewish canon)

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#422101 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect, I'd have a bit more time for you if you hadn't posited your "JPI's early death vitiates apostolic succession" bit.
As it stands, we'll agree to disagree.
Thanks for the discussion, Dan.
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#422102 Feb 12, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You just answered your question if you examine it.
Paul is writing to the Church that is in communion with the Apostles. He is not addressing Martin Luther. He is not addressing John Calvin, Confrinting, Preston, Harold Camping, nor you and the other 42,000 groups today.
There were heretics in his day too. He doesn't write broad letters to the people so they can 'figure out their own Christianity'. He is writing the Catholic Churches in Gal, Romans, Corinthians...
Gal 1:8 "but even if we or an Angel in Heaven preach another gospel other then the one we have preached to you, let them be under Gods curse"
This letter is to the Church and the Bishops the Apostles ordained. It is NOT a personal letter to you.
Are you for real.

"This letter is to the Church and the Bishops the Apostles ordained. It is NOT a personal letter to you. "

All the NT books are not a personal letter to anyone.
They are letters to believes in Jesus the Christ.

Thus they are letters to All Christians.
If we take your statement to its conclusion None of the Bible apples to anyone today because it is not personally addressed to anyone alive today.

It means none of the Early Church Fathers Letters apply to us.

You don't get to pick and choose verses as you see fit, you have become what you accuse protestants of a Pope unto yourself.

I find your reference to 42000 denominations quite interesting as well you do know that list includes 1000 RC sects such as the Jesuits for example it counts Baptist sects for each county they are in.

Even Revelation had 7 churches all with their issues never the less all of them were Christian.

Regional and cultural affiliation does not make any one sect less Christian its the essential doctrines that do.

Your Sect practices Idol worship, teaches a gospel contrary to the NT, indulgences Not Biblical, Purgatory Not Biblical.

In point of fact the the One true not christian sect in that list for sure is the RCC.
Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#422103 Feb 12, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
The church was built on Peter's confession, not on Peter. Jesus is the cornerstone and all of the apostles are the foundation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.asp...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...
What was Peter's mother-in-law's name? Does the Catholic church have a record of her name in their files?
What difference does that make?

The Church does not claim that Peter was not married. Scripture says that he was, or at the very least, there was a woman he had taken responsibilty for.(A somewhat twisted reading, just barely possible. Much more likely she was his wife's mother.)

This was a problem for Alberto Rivera, but he was a bit of an idiot. Any seminarian who asked such a question in class would have been reminded that clerical celibacy in the Western Church post-dates the middle ages, and that Peter was married according to scripture. The CC does not teach otherwise.

If you are going to try anti-Catholicism, you will need something better than A"Alberto" comic books.

Try this: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-anti-catho...

Boettner's "Roman Catholicism" is not particularly well-researched, and he did not understand much of what he was reading, but at least he is sufficiently popular with the anti-Catholic crowd that you will be a hit at parties.

Avoid Chiniquay and Maria Monk, as even hardened anti-Catholics have begun to catch on that they were both crackpots.

Good luck.

Rob

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#422104 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a man and you're trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't believe.
Pot, kettle, black.
Self.
Incorrect conclusion.

I've shown you documentation that blatantly states that your team only chose to beleive what they chose, and not a complete Jesus.

I've only brought these texts up and into the forefront so others can see their misleading lies that are being perpetuated by others as "Truth". They aren't.

You get to choose to believe whatever you want, so with you stating I am telling you to believe a certain way, is false and lying.

Why don't you:
a. Believe all of what Jesus taught?
b. believe the teachings of the remaining 7 original Apostles, if they are Jesus' followers and would have rcvd the same teachings as the other six?
c. Jesus is more enlightened than Paul, considering the NT contain so many of Paul's letters, but very few words by Jesus?

And if you were honest enough with yourself and others, you would be truthful and admit your faults openly and without fear of others ridiculing you.

But I keep forgetting, you are "Catholic", and to speak out against what you thoink is "true" is heresy. A heresy that was only devised by the men you think "know God".

You are clueless.

By the way - please don't presume you know what I mean in my posts. Ask me before you start making unfounded statements about me.
Why don't you believe Jesus?
Clay

United States

#422105 Feb 12, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real.
"This letter is to the Church and the Bishops the Apostles ordained. It is NOT a personal letter to you. "
All the NT books are not a personal letter to anyone.
They are letters to believes in Jesus the Christ.
Thus they are letters to All Christians.
If we take your statement to its conclusion None of the Bible apples to anyone today because it is not personally addressed to anyone alive today.
It means none of the Early Church Fathers Letters apply to us.
You don't get to pick and choose verses as you see fit, you have become what you accuse protestants of a Pope unto yourself.
I find your reference to 42000 denominations quite interesting as well you do know that list includes 1000 RC sects such as the Jesuits for example it counts Baptist sects for each county they are in.
Even Revelation had 7 churches all with their issues never the less all of them were Christian.
Regional and cultural affiliation does not make any one sect less Christian its the essential doctrines that do.
Your Sect practices Idol worship, teaches a gospel contrary to the NT, indulgences Not Biblical, Purgatory Not Biblical.
In point of fact the the One true not christian sect in that list for sure is the RCC.
So let me get this straight: you believe the folks at Corinth all gathered around when Pauls letter arrived; they announced "we got another one from Paul!" Then they promptly passed it around for each one to determine what the latest Christian teachings are?
Help me out here brother.

He was writing to the Church!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#422106 Feb 12, 2013
046
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Fear not.
All of these Catholic beliefs are predicated in Scripture.
You are delusional!!!!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#422107 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To clarify, my faith isn't in Pope Pius XII-it's in Christ instructing us through His Church without possibility of error.
The so-called "Church" has never been defined completely.

Do you have additional substance that is pertinent?

Better yet, please post your definition of "the Church", and let the forum decide.

Thanks!
Robert Dye

Tulsa, OK

#422108 Feb 12, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
We believe the Woman is Mary.
Thanks
Ehhhh....

More probable reading is that "the woman clothed with the sun" is "the Church."

Yes, she "brings forth a son," but I would not read that as a literal birth, but the Church "proclaiming" ("giving birth to,"/"bringing forth") the Gospel, the "Word of God." (Which, since Jesus IS "the Word," fits nicely with the symbolism of giving birth, if you use the Blessed Mother as a symbolic placeholder. Then you get the place in the desert (The Flight into Egypt/The Captivity Under Pharoh.)

The richness of meaning in SS is truly breathtaking.

Rob

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#422109 Feb 12, 2013
052
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You deny that Christ established the Church in scripture?
You better hold on to your own fans.
Show me the proper noun "Church" in the following.....you can't, because it ain't in there...the noun "church" is....

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against

Show me "Roman Catholic church"....."church " as in Scripture....

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 What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 35 min Mr_SKY 84,422
News Pope eases church rule on abortion forgiveness 1 hr Redeemed 13
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Mon 3Way4me 9,681
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Aug 30 Paul Porter1 421
News Ahead of pope's visit to US, some friction over... Aug 26 Belle Sexton 3
News Ahead of pope's visit to US, some friction over... Aug 25 Abrahamanic Relig... 1
News Pope Benedict is living out old age calmly (Aug '08) Aug 24 The Oracle 73
More from around the web