Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 20 comments on the Jul 10, 2007, CBC News story 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.

PoPz

Rio Rancho, NM

#422986 Feb 16, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE ALSO SAYS...
WE MUST FORGIVE OBAMA...
Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS HERE IS THAT
UNFORGIVENESS...IS THE NIGH ON TO BLASPHEMY...
GOD CANNOT FORGIVE UNFORGIVENESS...
IF WE DON'T FORGIVE OTHERS THEIR TRESPASSES ...GOD CANNOT FORGIVE OURS.
I must say this. I do not hate Catholics! I do not agree with them! But, but I hate hinduism. I hate islam! And I hate obama, the self proclaimed muslim and what his administration stands for! Thus I hate a lie!
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#422987 Feb 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unfortunately for you, it DOES have to say it in the Catechism.
If it's not in the Catechism, it's not a teaching of the Church.
The early part of the 15th Century isn't what's termed commonly as "pre-Vatican II", as Vatican II was held 500+ years from that time.
When 3 previous popes in power back in the day informed people other than catholics they were not entitled the kingdom of heaven. Your OK with that?

Why don't you admit it. The popes had no right to make such assumptions. What are you afraid of?

Don't dump on me for what the popes stated. They are the leaders of your church, shouldn't they know?
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#422988 Feb 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unfortunately for you, it DOES have to say it in the Catechism.
If it's not in the Catechism, it's not a teaching of the Church.
The early part of the 15th Century isn't what's termed commonly as "pre-Vatican II", as Vatican II was held 500+ years from that time.
Word for word today from our local newspaper.

......."Documents detailing the dubious fundraising pracitices of a disgraced Roman Catholic religious order called the Legion of Christ were released to the public Friday, showing how the organization took control of an elderly woman's finances and persudaed her to bequeath it $60 MILLION.

..Pope Benedicto XVI took over the legion in 2010 after a Vatican investigation determined that its founder the Rev Marcial maciel had lived a double life.

..The legion scandal is significant because it shows how the HOLY SEE wilfully ignored credible allegations of abuse against Maciel for decades, all while holding him up as a model for SAINTHOOD for the faithful because he brought in MONEY and vocations to the priesthood.

..The scandal which has tarnished the legacy of Pope John Paul II is the mose egregious example of those within the VATICAN ignorded decades of reports about sexually abusive priest because church leaders put the interests of the institution above thos of the victims.

Reverend Marciel abused children, and duped a lady out of $60 MILLION for catholic church programs.

The story is also posted today top right hand column on this forum under ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH NEWS......

Your OK with all this Dan?

UNBELIEVABLE!

Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#422989 Feb 16, 2013
Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
I hope this is someone faking being Clay.
The Malachy stuff is pur drivel.
It's a bit like that fraud John Edwards, with his parlour tricks for communicating with the dead.
The way you do it (horoscopes too) is to be vague, so that the interp is all in the mind of the interpreter.
If I'm john Edwards, I get up and say, "I'm getting a very strong sense ... of a deceased male presence ... something involving money ... or a will .. perhaps ... there was a question ... involving ....
"
All the while, he is watching the faces and body language of his audience, and he's good at it. He phrases what he says so that it is GUARANTEED that in any large gathering, there will be several people who could apply it to themselves, and think that he is "communicating" with the spirit of their loved one.
The Malachy predictions ... "Ship and Sea" is supposed to have "predictted the election of JPII. But those three words are so vague you could apply them to ANYONE.
Suppose I had been elected Pope, instead of JPII, back in 1978.
Okay. I was born in Hoiston, which is a seaport, and I "shipped" myself back to Oklahoma from HS in the northeast US. So "ship and sea" could be made to apply to me.
Or to anyone.
Such "prophecy" is drivel, and unimportant to Catholics.
Will Christ return today, and commence the Final Judgement? Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe next week.
Maybe next year, or in ten years, or in the thousand years.
I don't care when it happens.
If I am living my faith, placing my trust in the Teaching of Jesus Christ, and living what He commanded (let's not forget that part, though many of our Prot brothers and sisters call that "Salvation by works," and thereby set aside what He commanded), it does not matter when He comes. I'll be ready.
That is the Catholic Faith.
We don't waste time trying to decode the book of "Revelations" to "predict the future," because that is NOT what Sacred Scripture is for.
Don't waste your time on Malachy, either.
It's drivel. Pure and simple.
Rob
Rob, nice post on faith.

Maybe that's why your post got so many negative judgies -- because you focus on faith and reject the drivel.

Pat Robertson would certainly give you a negative judgie too. That's a badge of honor IMHO.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#422990 Feb 16, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
You just admitted to belonging to a denomination. By the definition of denomination, is it possible for a denomination to not be accepting the opinions of MAN.
I've always been told it takes one to know one. Maybe it is the person from the cult that's accusing others of being a cult...
at least I dint lie about not belonging to a denomination like you do. Our church believes in a close walk with God, not a tap water or [bathtub experience] like you do.
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#422991 Feb 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that they know who's in Heaven and who's in Hell.
Who's in Hell, according to the RCC?
Third time asking.
Dan is spinning so fast, he forgets to actually read my post.

Again.........

1... I DID write that the RCC teaches that specific persons are in Heaven. You call them saints.

2... I never wrote that the RCC teaches that a specific person is in Hell.

However, we can easily infer who they would be by RCC teachings on what was specifically required for salvation.

Did the RCC specifically teach that Thomas Jefferson was in Hell? Of course not. But according to RCC teachings at the time, Thomas Jefferson would surely be in Hell.

See Council of Trent on what was -- specifically required -- for salvation.

Dan is still playing word games.
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#422992 Feb 16, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not asking anyone to be obedient to Gods word. You're asking them to be obedient to what YOU think God Word says.
And Confrint, your version has only been around since 1910 AD.
You fool me not.
If you can't trust the ones who are leading you, who can you really trust Clay?

..Friday February 15, 2013 a Rhode Island Superior Court Judge stated these documents raised a red flag because a steadfastly spiritual elderly woman transferred MILLIONS of her assets to CLANDESTESTINELY DUBIOUS RELIGIOUS CATHOLIC CHURCH LEADERS, but the church had kept it under seal until the Associated Press, The New York Tims and the Providence jorunal intervened arguing that they were in the public interest and we should know.

......."Documents detailing the dubious fundraising pracitices of a disgraced Roman Catholic religious order called the Legion of Christ were released to the public Friday, showing how the organization took control of an elderly woman's finances and persudaed her to bequeath it $60 MILLION.

..Pope Benedicto XVI took over the legion in 2010 after a Vatican investigation determined that its founder the Rev Marcial maciel had lived a double life.

..The legion scandal is significant because it shows how the HOLY SEE wilfully ignored credible allegations of abuse against Maciel for decades, all while holding him up as a model for SAINTHOOD for the faithful because he brought in MONEY and vocations to the priesthood.

..The scandal which has tarnished the legacy of Pope John Paul II is the most egregious example of those within the VATICAN ignorded decades of reports about sexually abusive priest because church leaders put the interests of the institution above thos of the victims.

.....Reverend Marciel abused children, and duped a lady out of $60 MILLION for catholic church programs.

The story is also posted today top right hand column on this forum under ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH NEWS......

Who do you really trust to lead you Clay when you read stories such as this that are also in hundreds of newspapers and newscasts around the world today.

UNBELIEVABLE!
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#422993 Feb 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me when they ever taught that Martin Luther was in Hell.
Again Dan, if you actually read the post, you might make sense.

I asked -- "Is Martin Luther in Hell?

I then asked -- "Has the RCC changed its teachings on this situation in the past 500 years?"

Dan is left spinning because he knows the RCC has changed its most fundamental teaching (for the better IMHO) on who is eligible for salvation.

Again Dan, show us some integrity, or show me where I posted what you claim?

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#422994 Feb 16, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is:
How are you "born again" and placed "in Christ"?
Everyone should be able to give several conversion examples in the Bible for their answer to that last question.

you and hank often use that part of acerse about being "in Christ" so how about yuou tellus what you think it means.

to the Christian, It means to be Born Again and [united] WITH CHRIST
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#422995 Feb 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unfortunately for you, it DOES have to say it in the Catechism.
If it's not in the Catechism, it's not a teaching of the Church.
The early part of the 15th Century isn't what's termed commonly as "pre-Vatican II", as Vatican II was held 500+ years from that time.
I know Dan, there is always an excuse, always a reason why it ain't what it is.(lol)

Nothing wrong with putting relgious leaders feet to the fire. We do that all the time with everyone else in authority in our world. Church leaders are not exempt, and so they shouldn't be especially what we have learned the last 10 years or so.

Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#422996 Feb 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unfortunately for you, it DOES have to say it in the Catechism.
If it's not in the Catechism, it's not a teaching of the Church.
The early part of the 15th Century isn't what's termed commonly as "pre-Vatican II", as Vatican II was held 500+ years from that time.
Some Catholics take pride in their "2000 years of tradition" and "unchanging teachings."

Others like Dan think the RCC began in 1965 and never heard of the Council of Trent.

Dan, the Catechism today contains a few completely opposite teachings than did the Catechism of 120 years ago or of 500 years ago.

But if they are all "perfect" teachings, which one is correct? The liberalized version you see today, or the one that was in effect for 500 years prior?
Free Mind

Melbourne, FL

#422997 Feb 16, 2013
It must be tough on Catholics -- to live in a country founded on Reformation ideals, embracing so many of the anti-catholic ideals which grew out of the Reformation.

What choice do they have?

They could move to a country like Mexico, where most church are true. Or they can continue to live a lie and enjoy the fruits of the Reformation.

Obviously, most opt for the lie, as do so many Mexicans too btw.
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#422998 Feb 16, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
932
<quoted text>
You do know that the word Priest and the word priest, as used in the NT, have two, distinct, and different definitions.....right????
Distinct definitions. Thats not good. Here are a few more inconsistencies.

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

....Where does the FICTION stop and where does the real TRUTH begin? UNBELIEVABLE!

Want more? got more.....

So BUSTED!
Pad

Rockford, IL

#422999 Feb 16, 2013
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed that Bible only Christians do seem to be inconsistent in their views about women priests. They insist that we should all take the Bible alone in all matters, but at the same time attend churches who ordain women pastors which appears to contravene what is written about in the Bible. Just pointing out the inconsistency there.
Justice, Paul is the major Apostle, who addressed the issue of women in the teaching roles of the communities of his day.First of all we see history that has all since the beginning of recorded data,stated the role of women as subservient to men.Women just in the last two centuries have been given rights,women never had for over 3,000 years prior.

Women would separate from men in their own homes when visitors came to their house,the men in one room discussing important issues of the day,women were even told to discuss female things,and stay out of issues that don't concern them(politics,religion,and so on).

Women have always had to take the back seat of opinion,and even 100 years ago we see women being criticized for writing articles in newspapers,and giving their political views. So actually Justice the whole issue of women being active in their churches and even preaching all stems from the age old view men have in general toward women and children.Men have been given the power to rule,and even when women were placed as queens and whatever,men still imposed their authority and often restricted the ideas and opinions of women in general.

There is nothing wrong with a woman who preaches the gospel,and leads,but the problem is when men apathetically allow the women to take authority and contrtol over the whole body.If men will equally share in authority,and respect women in that role,both genders will work in harmony.BUT,too many men either oppose a woman to the point of out-right discrimination,OR they allow a woman to take control,and go do their thing.Many men in their homes just go play while their wives have to literally run the house hold.AND this can be seen in business,and corporate life,and in the church.

Women should not be faulted when men just sit back and let them have their time of leadership.If men do not take the middle road of sharing and being partners with women,using their skills along with the woman,than women are forced to stand up for what they feel is right,and that can be grievesome if the men fail to respect the woman enough to partner with her,instead of LAUD over her,or go about their play time,leaving the business to the woman.

It is actually man's fault that women are at times poor leaders,because they either discriminate,or take a n apathetic role to a fault.
guest

United States

#423000 Feb 16, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
why is it that cults wish for us to accept the opinions of another man when the Bible is clear as to how we are to lead our lives?
-
-
Saban fan wrote:
What is the Biblical definition of cult?
-
-
^What is the Biblical definition of cult?^... One who does NOT listen to the VOICE OF JESUS and so, by default, listens to another voice.
-
-
****
http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/10.htm
John 10:
25 Jesus answered,“I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 MY SHEEP LISTEN TO MY VOICE; I KNOW THEM, AND THEY FOLLOW ME. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
****
-
Jesus SAID: "Call NO MAN your Father." ... and “I did tell you, but you do not believe."
-
Catholics don't believe Jesus Christ. Catholics believe the Pope; Catholics listen to the voice of the Pope - who says - "Call ME Father, and call ALL Catholic Priests Father and ignore what Jesus Christ quite plainly said."
Catholics don't believe Jesus Christ but instead believe the Pope :: Therefore, they are a cult.
-
Basically, IF you really think about it, Catholics are asserting that Jesus Christ just didn't know what he was talking about.
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#423001 Feb 16, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
HOW TO RECEIVE CHRIST AS ONE'S PERSONAL SAVIOR IS GIVEN (BY THE APOSTLE PAUL)
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. <--
Oh really now!!! Is that all it takes!! The Devil (ALSO) believes in Jesus Christ!----According to "you" then Satan is now saved!!!
This is just another example of "bible only" (pick and choosing)of Sacred Scripture --cafeteria style (extracting and quoting (or better yet) "mis-quoting of bible verses. You Protestant (bible only buffoon) "fundies" hand out more whoppers than burger king!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#423002 Feb 16, 2013
958
JUST-A-CHRISTIAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, as you can see then, that verse IS in it.
A. It was said all Christians are Priest....with a capital"P"
B. Rev 1:6 was quoted to support that statement.
C.Rev 1:6 does not have the word Priest...with a capital "P".
D. Rev 1:6 has the word priest...without a capitalized "p".
E. Both words have distinct and different meanings...they are not interchangeable.
F. If you are still confused...get back to me...will be happy to elucidate further...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#423003 Feb 16, 2013
998 932
MICHAEL wrote:
<quoted text>
Distinct definitions. Thats not good. Here are a few more inconsistencies.
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
....Where does the FICTION stop and where does the real TRUTH begin? UNBELIEVABLE!
Want more? got more.....
So BUSTED!
The Bible speaks of you and your ilk..

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Bring fans...I understand it gets awfully hot....

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#423004 Feb 16, 2013
Hello Dan....

Catholics maintain Scripture in Mt 16:18 proves Christ built the Catholic Church, because He made Peter the first pope...

Well...guess what!!!! For Peter to be the first pope, there had to be, at that instant, a Catholic Church, or, at the very least, one before he died, thing is, there was not...

Proof: When Christ referred to the seven churches in Rev 2, He never referred to any of them as the Catholic Church...nor did He mention any church in Rome....

But...Catholics deny the truth...that is their mainstay....
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

#423005 Feb 16, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
998 932<quoted text>
The Bible speaks of you and your ilk..
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Bring fans...I understand it gets awfully hot....
OXBOW says.

..but he that believeth not shall be damned.

----------

Michael says.......and I thought God was an all loving God.

Oh well!

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) 6 hr Cultastic 9,185
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) Sat Jaimie 84,074
News Pope Francis to stop off in Cuba on way to Unit... Sat Sherlayne 8
News Pope Francis visit to Cuba confirmed Sat W A Y L O N 2
News Extremists sought in possible plot against the ... Fri tomin cali 1
News John Paul II College of Davao (Dec '07) Fri JJF 664
News Ion Mihai Pacepa 46 minutes ago History often r... Fri Tom Jones 1
More from around the web