Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 596695 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.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432175 Apr 12, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "self opinionated anti-catholic sources of historical "spin" PROVES NOTHING!! ALL you have done is "dig up" distorted dirt, "desperately" attempting to prove your "ridiculous assertion" that Apostolic Succession doesn't exist!! Do I have to "individually list all 267 Popes beginning with St Peter in (32-67) down through the current Pope Francis, in order to "get it through your" disordered, confused and editorial (opinionated) mind"
Pope Benedict IX
The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. His father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032). Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries. He insisted that Bretislav, Duke of Bohemia, should found a monastery, for having carried off the body of St. Adalbert from Poland. In 1037 he went north to meet the Emperor Conrad and excommunicated Heribert, Archbishop of Milan, who was at emnity with him . Benedict, however,resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian . John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for guidance. On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata.[See "St. Benedict and Grottaferrata" (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important "De Sepulcro Benedicti IX", by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747).]
this is the catholic version,it's obvious because there are lies in your post,example"Of his pontifical acts little is known," this is bulls78t,a popes reign is very well documented,on every one of them,and i'd bet your life that if i checked the writers of this post like Raoul Glaber,he would be associated heavily with the church,which we know for a fact it would lie about the wrong doings of any pope,it's lied many times over the decades,the whole world knows it so you can not deny it. I stand by my post as being truthful. no apostolic succession exists,and peter was never a pope,church rules would forbid it,he was married.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432176 Apr 12, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "self opinionated anti-catholic sources of historical "spin" PROVES NOTHING!! ALL you have done is "dig up" distorted dirt, "desperately" attempting to prove your "ridiculous assertion" that Apostolic Succession doesn't exist!! Do I have to "individually list all 267 Popes beginning with St Peter in (32-67) down through the current Pope Francis, in order to "get it through your" disordered, confused and editorial (opinionated) mind"
Pope Benedict IX
The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. His father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032). Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries. He insisted that Bretislav, Duke of Bohemia, should found a monastery, for having carried off the body of St. Adalbert from Poland. In 1037 he went north to meet the Emperor Conrad and excommunicated Heribert, Archbishop of Milan, who was at emnity with him . Benedict, however,resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian . John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for guidance. On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata.[See "St. Benedict and Grottaferrata" (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important "De Sepulcro Benedicti IX", by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747).]
show me something that is not written by a hand picked catholic historian.
Pad

Rockford, IL

#432177 Apr 12, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
May your days in remission be happy and fruitful!
:oP
Way to go J!
Thank God for modern science,and jethro's being diagnosed clean of cancer.I hope him the best,and agree with you that his days will be happy and fruitful!

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432178 Apr 12, 2013
My Portal wrote:
<quoted text>When did Martin Luther remove books from the Bible?
that is a question you'll have to ask a catholic,they claim he did,i have not read much about the protestant religion,because this site here is about the ridiculous statement made by the pagan/christian church as being gods true church,more likely Satans church than gods, going by their own history.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#432179 Apr 12, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote
Its impossible and you're oblivious to the catastrophe your 'Bible Alone' teaching.
QUESTION...
ARE YOU CALLING GOD A LIAR?...
I PITY YOUR BLATANT IGNORANCE...THAT COULD COST YOU YOUR ETERNAL SOUL

~~~

YOU ROMAN CATHOLICS CANNOT CITE ONE INCIDENT (FROM THE BIBLE )WHERE ANY ONE WAS SAVED UPON HEARING OR PARTICIPATING OR DOING THEIR CONJECTURE.

YOUR ROAD MAP LEADS NOWHERE AND PROMISES NOTHING UPON ARRIVE TO THE NOWHERE IT LEADS TO.

YOU ASSUMED YOURSELVES INTO AT THE TOP FLOOR OF GOD'S

ETERNAL PLAN OF SALVATION WITH ...

WITH NO FOUNDATION...THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GO IS DOWN..

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#432180 Apr 12, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>Thank God for modern science,and jethro's being diagnosed clean of cancer.I hope him the best,and agree with you that his days will be happy and fruitful!
AMEN

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432181 Apr 12, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Jethro, for anyone just learning about Christianity, its absolutely essential for them to read the writings of the early Church. The Apostles didn't just hand out epistles and walk away. They verbally communicated Our Lords teachings.
Therefore, when you and everyone else point to certain verses as if you uncovered a teaching that was missed, or the CC apparently taught wrong on for 1600 yrs, you're being irresponsible.
John 6:63 does not undo what Jesus Christ taught, and all of His Apostles taught; and all of Christianity taught for 1,600 yrs. Don't you get it? The faith was already revealed. There is no bomb
shell or conspiracy uncovered as Old G and Confrint would like everyone to believe. They will avoid the writings of the early Church fathers until they take their last breath. I guess its better to be ignorant than face the fact you may be wrong!
Pride comes before the fall.
if i'm wrong i have no problem admitting it,the early Church fathers were a group of men put together by a pagan emperor,so reading their writings really doesn't mean much,lets face it,if it were not for the roman empire you would not have a catholic church,you would have a christian church possibly but not a combined pagan/christian church,which is what the catholic church is. do you agree? if not why? offer of proof?

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#432182 Apr 12, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you provide Book, Chapter and Verse where Christ commands a Bible be written for His Ministry?
Could you provide Book, Chapter and Verse where the Apostles teach the 'Bible Alone' as the sole authority on Christianity?
If you can't, then why do you teach it?

Thanks
THE PROOF IS IN THE POWER AND FULFILLMENT OF GOD'S WORD..

IT ACCOMPLISHES THAT FOR WHICH GOD SENT IT...AND RETURNS TO HIM AS A

RECEIPT/PROOF OF HIS WILL BEING ACCOMPLISHED...

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:

it shall not return unto me void, but

it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the

thing whereto I sent it.

THE WORDS OF ROME ONLY HAS THE POWER OF THE NATION OF ROME ...IT17'S NOTHING BUT CONFUSION OF FACE...ALL IT ACCOMPLISHES IS ...TO GLORIFY A EARTH BOUND MAN MADE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Pad

Rockford, IL

#432183 Apr 12, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you provide Book, Chapter and Verse where Christ commands a Bible be written for His Ministry?
Could you provide Book, Chapter and Verse where the Apostles teach the 'Bible Alone' as the sole authority on Christianity?
If you can't, then why do you teach it?
Thanks
Common sense tells us that if our fathers in faith the JEWS were instructed to hold to the ten commandments and to not make images to use in the worship of God, we should do the same,as JESUS fulfilled the Law.

The Catholic Church somehow thinks they are above the law when it comes to kneeling before images of mis-represented saints and Christ Himself who is God.Do we know what those people looked like,or that a statue of them is mediate or a medium to pray through to the Person it supposedly represents?

You said that a Jewish synagogue was unearthed and that a sculpture of a man worshiping God was found in it.Did the Jews present when the synagogue was built kneel before that man and ask him to bring petitions to the Living God?

The Scriptures reveal the Purpose and Will of the Father both in His ancient people the Hebrews and to the early beleivers called Christians at Antioch.You must think Clay we are so dumb that what we see as clear proof of what has come down the pike as it were,to be confirmed as truth along with the Scriptures.WELL if that which has come down resembles what God purposed through the Hebrews and their testimony of truth,fine than their traditions align with the Bible.But the RC use of statues and the pomp of pedestals bearing a statue to be venerated,is not Hebrew tradition,but pagan.

So if the venerated statue was not part of the tradition of the Jews and early believers,our wanting to adhere to the Scriptures to protect sound doctrine is solo.It does not have to be written in the Scriptures to protect the only confirmation of truth,as we by virtue of following that truth in the Scritpures will by the Spirit WANT to protect and safeguard truth,abhorring the traditions of men,that are used to falsify the truth of God's purpose from His beginning,not man's!

You want the Scriptures to confirm to you that they are in fact the confirmation of the Will of God solely,they are,and do not need to satisfy your question.They stand alone without any debate to truly bluprint the design of the Father for His kingdom.The Scriptures are spiritually discerned and they are NOT subservient to the will of men.

Your statues are venerated,and many kneel before them as mediums of the person they supposedly represent,and that is condemned by the LORD in the First two commandments of the original 10.This has been a dividing wall of contention for centuries,and even before the Protestant Reformation there were movements to stamp out the Iconoclast and the use of statues.Many men of God throughout the centuries have voiced their concern against statues in the Houses of Worship.They apparently lost the battle,but the victors gained a future of division and contempt as well.

Did you know that in the Inquisitions the tortured was often told if they would just kiss a statue and venerate an image,they would be set free.Many died refusing to pay homage to a created image of JESUS,or the Blessed Mother.God's Laws supercede outs,your church formerly mine broke the First comandment,and still do to this day.I really wonder as an institution what will be the final outcome for Roman Catholicism? I do not condemn many who love JESUS,and walk with Him in spite of the main institution that has failed to keep the very first commandments of God.

Clay enjoy what you want in your church,I do not condemn you,but you are wasting time if you pray that I should become a revert to that when I know that your church formerly mine,still adorns their houses of worship with mediums known as statuary,when God has forbidden it from day one with MOSES.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#432184 Apr 12, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
When or why?
When: in the 16th century he made up the false doctrine of Sola Scripture. He removed 7 books of the OT and attempted to remove the Books of James, Hebrews and Revelation from the NT.
Why: Because he thought he had the authority to do so. He was used as a pawn of the devil to bring down the Catholic Church. It didn't work.
What source are you using?

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432185 Apr 12, 2013
Sunny Wendy March wrote:
<quoted text>
The catholic church was founded some 300+ years after Jesus had died and was resurected. Meanwhile, His apostles were preaching in congregations the exact doctrine that Jesus had taught them, and that first preaching can be read in Acts chapter 2, and it teaches one mindedness, one Word, one God, Christ, Holy Spirit, baptism and more,(also in Eph. 4:4). Wearing long robes and saying repetitive prayers and loudly so people could hear is a no-no. Jesus specifically said do not do those things. Baptism is to wash away sins, which adults accumulate every day. But babies have no sins and therefore do not need to be baptized, yet. And, baptism represents complete burial. We don't bury our dead with only a handful of dirt, and we don't get baptized with just a sprinkling of water. We are completely immersed in water, to wash away sins that ADULTS commit. We study, learn, teach, obey, be peaceful and knowledgeable of His word. No chanting,( that sounds like satanic stuff to me ), but "singing, making melody in your hearts"; no musical instruments. The pope is NOT an equal to Jesus here on Earth, there's no such thing. Any kind of "preacher" is no more holy than anyone else, "for God is not a respector of persons". Boniface III founded catholicism hundreds of years after Christ arose. His church, His Kingdom, was founded the moment Jesus died.(He isn't coming back to reign on Earth for 1,000 years. He will never set foot on this Earth again, except that Earth is now His footstool as He sits on the right hand of God ). We each, individually, partake of the fruit of the vine and breaking of bread, the minister/preacher does not do that for us, and every week, not just holidays, "For as often as ye do this....". And the painting of the last supper was painted hundreds of years after Jesus died. No way did He take time to pose for a painting. The clothes aren't what was worn in Jesus' day, and other faults in the pic. There's so much facts to share, I will be glad to.
Jesus will not be coming back to earth? then where is the great battle between him and Satan going to take place? it's suppose to be here on earth. and do you believe the catholic church is gods true church?

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432186 Apr 12, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="jethro8" not really knowing the meaning of the word transubstantiation, i looked, came across this:Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:Jesus said to them,‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”
Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is such a concept biblical?
JETHRO: according to this if i take my jewish rye bread (which i love eating by the slice)and a bottle of wine to a catholic priest he does his hocus pocus routine, and I eat the bread and drink the wine,that makes me a cannibal?. who ever makes this B.S. up has a sick sense of humor. the more i read about the pagan/christian church the sicker it becomes,no way is it the true church, now if you called it the true church of SATAN,going by it's phony teachings and it's true history,that is believable, because that is what it sounds like to me.
**********
The bread and wine were/are (of) Jesus' Body BECAUSE HE SAID SO...NOT because some man says words over it.
KayMarie
it's only symbolic,it does not become real flesh and blood,not like the church apparently thinks.

Since: Nov 08

usa

#432187 Apr 12, 2013
time to take a break,see you guys later.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#432188 Apr 12, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>that is a question you'll have to ask a catholic,they claim he did,i have not read much about the protestant religion,because this site here is about the ridiculous statement made by the pagan/christian church as being gods true church,more likely Satans church than gods, going by their own history.
I ask because I had read both pro and con to the subject.

Did Martin Luther remove books? Nope. He questioned the canonicity of the books but he did not remove them. He put them in a separate section but he did not take them out. Did his descendants? Nope. Did the translators of the KJV? Nope. One of the bishops who translated the KJV made it illegal to print KJV Bibles without the Apocryhpa. It wasn't until the 1880's that Protestants began printing Bibles without the Apocrypha. The Apocryphal books should not occupy the same place in our theology that the Gospels do but they should not become the chief article that divides us. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans all hold up the Gospel Book and give it a special place in the service. The same is not done with the Apocrypha in any of the churches. All make some use of the Apocrypha in the liturgy.
Anthony MN

Hopkins, MN

#432190 Apr 12, 2013
jethro8 wrote:
<quoted text>if i'm wrong i have no problem admitting it,the early Church fathers were a group of men put together by a pagan emperor,so reading their writings really doesn't mean much,lets face it,if it were not for the roman empire you would not have a catholic church,you would have a christian church possibly but not a combined pagan/christian church,which is what the catholic church is. do you agree? if not why? offer of proof?
Which pagan emperor put them together? Surely you're not referring to Constantine.
Anthony MN

Hopkins, MN

#432191 Apr 12, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>
Spouting pretty much the same old crap Dan. You must be getting a visit from Auntie Flo this week.

"Previously God, who has neither a body nor a face, absolutely could not be represented by an image. But now that he has made himself visible in the flesh and has lived with men, I can make an image of what I have seen of God ... and contemplate the glory of the Lord, his face unveiled."
St. John Damascene
Anthony MN

Hopkins, MN

#432192 Apr 12, 2013
Deut. 4:15 - from this verse, Protestants say that since we saw "no form" of the Lord, we should not make graven images of Him.

Deut. 4:16 - of course, in early history Israel was forbidden to make images of God because God didn't yet reveal himself visibly "in the form of any figure."

Deut. 4:17-19 - hence, had the Israelites depicted God not yet revealed, they might be tempted to worship Him in the form of a beast, bird, reptile or fish, which was a common error of the times.

Exodus 3:2-3; Dan 7:9; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Acts 2:3- later on, however, we see that God did reveal himself in visible form (as a dove, fire, etc).

Deut. 5:8 - God's commandment "thou shall not make a graven image" is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.

Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 - for example, God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God.

Num. 21:8-9 - God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural.

I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon's temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.

2 Kings 18:4 - it was only when the people began to worship the statue did they incur God's wrath, and the king destroyed it. The command prohibiting the use of graven images deals exclusively with the false worship of those images.

1 Chron. 28:18-19 - David gives Solomon the plan for the altar made of refined gold with a golden cherubim images. These images were used in the Jews' most solemn place of worship.

2 Chron. 3:7-14 - the house was lined with gold with elaborate cherubim carved in wood and overlaid with gold.

Ezek. 41:15 - Ezekiel describes graven images in the temple consisting of carved likenesses of cherubim. These are similar to the images of the angels and saints in many Catholic churches.

Col. 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the "image" (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/index.html
marge

Ames, IA

#432193 Apr 12, 2013
Anthony

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#432195 Apr 12, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
First you are a complete idiot. That being said, you are nothing more than a pitiful little Roman Catholic cultist trying to sound intelligent yet with every breath you reveal your ignorance.
Jesus is catholic? Really? Do you own a Bible? Read Matthew 15:24, "He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Did Jesus say He came for the Roman Catholics?
You said, quote, "What I am getting from you is that you would rather sow discord and bitterness amongst your brothers and sisters in Christ." End quote.
You are not my brother in Christ. Why? Because you are not "im Christ". You are nothing more than a big mouth Roman Catholic hiding behind the lies of your fathers. Try reading a Bible. You might learn how far from Christ you really are. Or maybe you will go eat a cracker and call it Jesus. Does that work for you?
God help you. You will need all of His mercy.

While the nation is being torn apart by socialists and Muslims, you will continue to lie about your brothers and sisters in Christ.

How do you think God will judge you?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#432196 Apr 12, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you Clay!
would yu be willing to reverse your train-of-thought here and possibly apply it to yourself? i.e., could you possibly be refusing truth because you prefer tradition & religion over it?
for example, i can simply and completely explain what Jesus was referring to when talking about eating His flesh and driniking His blood in the Gospel of John chap 6 and it has nothing to do with RCC hocus-pocus/transubstantiation /eucharist. the 'eucharist' is an extra-biblical & exclusively RCC idea that you will NOT find in the Bible.
would YOU be willing to receive TRUTH or would it be better for YOU to leave this discussion?
By what authority do you have to overrule centuries of Christians before you that disagree? Who gave you exclusive powers to interpret the Bible as you see fit?

Eucharist means Thanksgiving, and we Baptists practice it, too, though more in honor and symbolism than literal. So are we wrong, too?

By what authority to you preach and risk the souls of others?

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) 3 hr Married in 9,540
News Cuba's Havana Archbishop, Cardinal Jaime Ortega... 3 hr WE JUST DONT CARE 12
News Ecuador, first stop on Pope tour, highlights en... Sat Mark 1
News James Inhofe to Pope Francis: Shut up with your... Jun 30 2all 42
News Milwaukee Art Museum's embrace of condom portra... Jun 29 The Anti- Islamist 1
News Pope's Leaked Encyclical on Climate Change Has ... Jun 26 Buybull Mullahs 6
News Global warming deniers unimpressed with pope's ... Jun 26 Earthling-1 118
More from around the web