Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665122 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.

Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437814 May 4, 2013
Myth #1: First Among Equals

The first myth is that the Pope of Rome used to be "First Among Equals" (and/or "Ecumenical Patriarch") and then "placed himself over the other bishops, wanting to be Head of the Church."

FACT: The Pope NEVER held the title "First Among Equals." However, he DID posses the titles "Vicarius Christi" (Vicar of Christ, late 300's), "Servus Sevorum Dei" (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400's), and Yep, you guessed it, "Head of the Church" (late 400's), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). So, any Orthodox who denies that the Pope of Rome is Head of the Church does not stand with the Council Fathers.

As for Ecumenical Patriarch, that was an out-and-out creation by the Byzantine government in the 600's (and it was never offered to Rome, but was designed for Constantinople). Gregory the Great was the first to deny this title to the P.of C.(calling it "haughty" and "unTraditional") and the denials continued well into the 900's (when Photius demanded to have it); and, after him, Michael Cerularius which was fuel to the fire re: the Great Schism.

Myth #2: Five Patriarchs with Equal Authority

The 2nd myth goes like this: "There used to be 5 Patriarchs, all with equal authority. Then, the Pope of Rome broke off from the Church, whereas the other 4 remained."

Now,:-) this again, is not only revisionism, but out-and-out Greek bigotry. As stated, it makes it seem like there were 4 independent Patriarchs at the time who freely refused to stick with Rome in 1054. However, once one bothers to read the history, that's not the case at all.

In 1054, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these sees (since all of the locals broke off with the Monophysites). Rather, the Orthodox bishops of these sees in 1054 were all Byzantine Melkites -- Imperial appointees from Constantinople! Furthermore, they were presiding within Muslim countries; and their flocks were puny at best (most of the Christians in those regions being Monophysite, not Orthodox). So, they were no longer the great metropolitan sees of the ancient Church.

So, when the Orthodox say that there were 5 patriarchs and 1 broke off, that is not the case at all. It was not a 4 to 1 split. It was a 1 to 1 split -- Rome and Constantinople. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time (ruled by imperial-minded Greeks from Byzantium) did whatever Constantinople told them to do. And, if Churches like the Copts and the Jacobites turn out not to be Monophysite after all, then these men weren't even the the legitimate bishops! But, the "Greek invaders" as the Copts and Syrians saw them.

So, in essence, the aforementioned Orthodox myth implies (nay, declares) that one must be Byzantine Greek in order to be in the Church. This is most anathema. ;-) And so much for the "poll of bishops" to determine orthodoxy. By 1054, Byzantium had done away with that replacing (rightly or wrongly) the legitimately-elected bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions at Chalcedon. So, if Orthodoxy truly believes that correct doctrine is determined by a poll of the teachings of all bishops everywhere, then Orthodoxy is guilty of hypocrisy (from about 451 on).

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#437815 May 4, 2013
120
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
And why a Jew would want to build a church rather than a synagogue, is another one of those tall tales that ought to be scrutinized to the fullest.
synagogue: sunagoge, an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:--assembly, congregation, synagogue.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437816 May 4, 2013
In the January 2009 issue of "The Word", publication of The Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip Saliba decried the divisions of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America into separate ethnic-national Churches. We have, he lamented, "more than fifteen jurisdictions based on ethnicity contrary to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils." His important article reproduced the talk he gave at the Conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary in Scarsdale, NY, on June 4-8, 2008. There he admitted canonical chaos had resulted from the century-old grip of Ethno-phyletism on their Churches.[Ethno-phyletism is the view that each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church, resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

Metropolitan Philip declared:

"Our canons clearly state that we cannot have more than one bishop over the same territory, and one metropolitan over the same metropolis. I regret to tell you that we Orthodox are violating this important ecclesiological principle in North America, South America, Europe and Australia. In New York, for example, we have more than ten Orthodox bishops over the same city and the same territory. I can say the same thing about other cities and territories in North America... The same thing has happened in Paris, France. There are six co-existing Orthodox bishops with overlapping ecclesiological jurisdictions. In my opinion and in the opinion of Orthodox canonists, this is ecclesiological ethno-phyletism. This is heretical. How can we condemn ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872 and still practice the same thing in the twenty-first century in North America ?"
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioc...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#437817 May 4, 2013
120
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
They were the first denomination, as they were the first to use the word Christian for their religion.
All others are shirt-tale relations.
Christian:
A name given at Antioch to those who believed Jesus to be the Messiah, A. D. 42, Ac 11:26 It seems to have been given to them by the men of Antioch as a term of convenience rather than of ridicule, to designate the new sect more perfectly than any other word could do. They generally called each other "brethren," "the faithful," "saints," "believers;" and were named by the Gentiles, Nazarenes and Galileans. He only is a real Christian who heartily accepts Christ as his teacher, guide, and master, the source of his highest life, strength, and joy, his only Redeemer from sin and hell, his Lord and his God. They who rightly bear Christ's name and partake of his nature, and they only, shall finally share in his glory.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#437818 May 4, 2013
Regina wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you read what I posted from the Catechism about our reverence for Scripture. It's very rude of you not to acknowledge it and apologize for your remarks.
Scripture is the written portion of Sacred Tradition.
The Catholic Church came before the Bible.
The Bible came from the Catholic Church.
The NT was written by the Catholic Church for the Catholic Church.
It's our pleasure to allow you to read it. You're welcome.
Do try to reign in your claws and fangs. "Aretha" (lol), doesn't like it.
;)
Scripture is the written portion of Sacred Tradition. Lie #1 This statement is so stupid it does not warrant a response.

The Catholic Church came before the Bible. Lie #2 So the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH wrote the Bible. That will be news for the Jews.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church. Lie #3 No, the Bible came from God.

The NT was written by the Catholic Church for the Catholic Church. Lie #4.....Which of the New Testament writers claimed to be Roman Catholic?

Other than 4 lies what else do you have to offer?
marge

Leesburg, GA

#437819 May 4, 2013
But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
marge

Leesburg, GA

#437820 May 4, 2013
Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church
marge

Leesburg, GA

#437821 May 4, 2013
And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ--everything in heaven and on earth.
marge

Leesburg, GA

#437822 May 4, 2013
God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church.
marge

Leesburg, GA

#437823 May 4, 2013
hey oxbow and oldjg;

They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#437824 May 4, 2013
During the history of Christianity, the title of Vicar of Christ was used in different ways, with implications for theological, pastoral or different time.
BISHOPS AS VICARS OF CHRIST
1. The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, a disciple of St. John, probably commanded by Peter,with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD "your bishop presides in the place of God (...)". Although Ignatius did not explicitly use the term Vicar of Christ, he clearly sets out the concept.
2. More recently, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium noted that bishops are "vicars and ambassadors of Christ," and the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that each bishop governs his diocese "[a]s Christ's vicar."
HOLY SPIRIT AS VICAR OF CHRIST
The second recorded use of the term "Vicar of Christ" is found in the epistles of Tertullian in the 3rd century, with a different theological slant to refer to the Holy Spirit, that is, as Christ is not physically performing miracles in the Church, Holy Spirit acts as his Vicar on his behalf, performing miracles and preventing the Church err.[8] It is unknown whether this term was widely used in the early Church, or whether it was a personal theological observation of Tertullian.
5TH CENTURY APPLIED TO POPEGELASIUS 1
he third use of the term Vicar of Christ appears in the 5th century, in a synod of bishops to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The theological connotations of the title got a pastoral sense, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar and pastor with the responsibility to feed his flock (i.e. the Church) in his own place

USE OF THE TITLE TO REFER TO THE POPES IN THE EARLY CHURCH WAS UNSTABLE
However, the use of the title to refer to the popes in the early Church was unstable, and several variants of the use of Vicar were used for the Pope, as "Vicar of Peter", indicating that they were the successors of St. Peter, "Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles" or "Vicar of the Apostolic See",[3] among other variants. This title is used by the Roman Missal in their prayers for a dead pope,[9] and the oath of allegiance to St. Boniface to Pope Gregory II
SINCE 1200 USED TITLE VICARFOR RIGHT APPOINT BISHOPS
Since 1200, Popes have consistently used this title Insisting that he - and he alone - had the right to remove bishops from office, Pope Innocent III appealed to the title of Vicar of Christ.(cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep.")[3] Occasionally, Popes like Nicholas III used "Vicar of God" as an equivalent title)[3] The 2012 edition of the Annuario Pontificio gives "Vicar of Jesus Christ" as the second official title of the Pope (the first being "Bishop of Rome").
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437825 May 4, 2013
Eastern Orthodox Fr. Cleenewerck states:

"Orthodox would almost like to forget that their [liturgical] calendar and theology is replete with ‘Popes of Rome’ whose teachings about their own authority is better left unmentioned."
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437826 May 4, 2013
Orthodox Scholar Alexander Schmemann The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology

"There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this -- and to deny this is based purely on "anti-Roman prejudice"

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local 'centers of agreement' or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy....

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome --'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history -- an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#437827 May 4, 2013
I explained to the forum the event where Eve gave birth to both Cain and Abel and I showed you guys where it read "She again bare his brother abel" so that verse should have read thusly when you understand the word AGAIN in Hebrew..."she """CONTINUED """ in labor and bare his brother Abel. Of the two brothers that she gave birth to,Cain came out first and when she continued ( THE WORD """"AGAIN """" WAS USED HERE)in labor she then gave birth to his brother Abel. THEY WERE FRATERNAL TWINS EACH FATHERED BY A DIFFERENT MAN. Adam ( Abel ) and Satan,(Cain ).
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437828 May 4, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
an ecumenical council at Chalcedon could clearly recognize why Rome had the prerogatives she did, as seen in the 28th canon of Chalcedon:
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ROYAL CITY. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.
More revisionist history from the Hermetic.

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying...

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:

cont.

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#437829 May 4, 2013
Many people have a issue with Satan fathering a child ( Cain ) due to the fact that they think a spirit entity such as Satan is not able to father a child but that is not the case. A spirit entity can indeed father children with a human though the progeny will be a hybrid type opf entity as God has forbidden such a thing.

Understand the 6th chapter of Genesis where we are shown that SONS OF GOD saw that the daughters of men were fair and they took wives of all that they chose and children were born to them. These children were hybrids i.e GIANTS and Goliath as well as his brother were of such a union. People the things the word of God can reveal to you if only you had spiritual eyes to see.

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#437830 May 4, 2013
Tony17 wrote:
Many people have a issue with Satan fathering a child ( Cain ) due to the fact that they think a spirit entity such as Satan is not able to father a child but that is not the case. A spirit entity can indeed father children with a human though the progeny will be a hybrid type opf entity as God has forbidden such a thing.
Understand the 6th chapter of Genesis where we are shown that SONS OF GOD saw that the daughters of men were fair and they took wives of all that they chose and children were born to them. These children were hybrids i.e GIANTS and Goliath as well as his brother were of such a union. People the things the word of God can reveal to you if only you had spiritual eyes to see.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjva/genesis/6...
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#437831 May 4, 2013
Now this is what really happened and the part Herme conveniently left out when he said the council declared equal priviledges and it was so. Clearly authority had been exercised numerous times before as Constanople tried to usurp authority it never had.

"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)

However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.-- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500)-- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#437832 May 5, 2013
And allow me to warn you good people about something that is soon to occur, those of you that are sleeping in bliss (IGNORANCE). Satan and his fallen angels are soon to be kicked out of heaven and they're coming right here to good old terra firma,earth. They will look just like a regular human being and you won't be able to tell who they are if you have """"" eyes wide shut"""" spiritually speaking. They will again be trying to take humans in marriage just as they did in Noah's day. Christ foretold us that just as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the last days.

That time is fast approaching. You guys that call yourselves Christians had best wake up and stop with the deceptive fairy tales that are coming from the so called church.

You people have been lied to about a whole lot from the very pulpit that are supposed to be the guardians of the truth of the word of God.

The so called church have failed miserably in spreading THE TRUTH. But they have been very successful in spreading the deception that Satan intended to accomplish. From the very puplits that call themselves churches of God.
truth

Ellenbrook, Australia

#437835 May 5, 2013
koliko rogova
toliko stogova
koliko batra
tolika vatra
koloko cackalica
toliko plackalica
koliko kolica
toliko lica

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 Pope Francis's Visit to Turkey Embroiled in Par... (Dec '14) 20 hr Azat 2
News As election nears, Pope Francis warns against f... Thu Communist In A Dress 20
News Region's Catholic bishop welcomes Pope's stance... Nov 30 Cops are degenerates 35
News Franklin Graham rebuts pope on Islam: - This is... Nov 29 narako 2
News Free Presbyterians 'will protest' Pope's visit Nov 29 narako 1
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Nov 29 Married in 10,375
News Pope Francis confers Ratzinger Prizes, pays tri... Nov 29 narako 1
More from around the web