Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 542,828
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#437797 May 4, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
Tome of Leo
Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy is the Tome of Leo which is a letter sent by Pope Leo to the Second Ecumenical Council. It in part seems to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the pope but other churchmen as well.
"After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo's), the most reverend bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”
However it is not just Leo's teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but Cyril's teaching as well. Both teach as Peter. The same language was used following the reading of Cyril's letter at the council.[32] The language of the council is simply to reinforce that all believe.[33] At the Third Ecumenical Council Pope Celestine and Cyril were compared to Paul!
Comes down to this:

Do you think Peter was the leader of the Apostles or not?
If Christ set up his Church like that, then its safe to say that the next generation of Apostles also had a leader....and the next and next.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#437798 May 4, 2013
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.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#437799 May 4, 2013
Catholics are members of a denomination....no matter how blue in the face you get denying it!!!!!

This is a list of Christian denominations by number of members. It is inevitably partial and generally based on claims by the denominations themselves. The numbers should therefore be considered approximate. The list includes all the Eastern Catholic Churches affiliated to the Catholic Church, all the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches with some recognition, relevant breakaway churches of the Catholic Church, the Protestant denominations and the Anglican churches with at least 0.2 million members, and all the other Christian branches with a distinct theological tradition.
Contents

1 Christian denominational families
2 Largest denominations in the world
2.1 Catholicism - 1.2 billion
2.2 Protestantism - 600–800 million
2.3 Eastern Orthodoxy - 230 million
2.4 Anglicanism - 85 million
2.5 Oriental Orthodoxy - 82 million
2.6 Restorationism - 49 million
2.7 Nestorianism - 0.6 million
2.8 Unitarian Universalism - 0.6 million

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#437800 May 4, 2013
Anthony....and other misdirected Catholics:

The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD. Later in that century, in 380 AD, Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire. During the following 1000 years, Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.

Question: If, as you believe, Christ built the Catholic Church when He said "I will build my church"...why did it take Him,almost 400 years to do So!!!!!????

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437801 May 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pretty sure the Jehovah's do not profess to be Christians..
They profess to be the ONLY true Christians, yet they put all their faith in the image of the god created by the Jews.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>

From the August 2010 edition of the WATCHTOWER magazine

The Clergy-laity distinction “All you are brothers,” said Jesus to his followers.(Matthew 23:8) The early Christians, including the Bible writers, had no clergy class. This Biblical pattern is the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437802 May 4, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
Anthony....and other misdirected Catholics:
The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD. Later in that century, in 380 AD, Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire. During the following 1000 years, Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.
Question: If, as you believe, Christ built the Catholic Church when He said "I will build my church"...why did it take Him,almost 400 years to do So!!!!!????
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.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437803 May 4, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
Catholics are members of a denomination....no matter how blue in the face you get denying it!!!!!


They were the first denomination, as they were the first to use the word Christian for their religion.

All others are shirt-tale relations.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437804 May 4, 2013
From my perception the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in stating that the first Christians had no clergy class. The word bishop indicates that they did have an organized religion. Each region had its bishop apart from other bishops and because the bishops couldn't agree, pandemonium was the rule, rather than the exception. That is why after over three centuries, the first bishop Siricius (384 - 99) took the throne and called himself "father" of the other bishops ... as in "pope."

Since: May 13

Mosman, Australia

#437805 May 4, 2013
Elizabeth wrote:
As someone who is catholic and was raised in the faith, I find this truly offensive that the Pope would make a statement like this. It is making me seriously consider leaving the church. As long as popele believe in God and the holy trinity, why does it matter whether they believe as catholics, methodists, lutherans, etc? I think Benedict has gone too far with this statement and I do believe it is going to hurt the catholic church in the long run.
Problem with catholic church is the fact that for very long time shifted from real Christ teaching to pragmatic humanism( by introducing new dogmas, practises etc).
Note: Humanism is a religion that puts human in the center of universe instead God.
This lecture will probably give more insight in that process.

&li st=PL72iUL6CZDkH0LFpsvDHwP-3bN _onaxl7

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#437806 May 4, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Tony17:
Genesis4
1 And Adam(the man) knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel.
To imagine Adam and Eve did not bear both Cain and Abel, is seeking something imagined rather than what is written. It is not necessary to repeat something over and over when developing a story. That would not help one follow a storyline, but disrupt a line of thought.
Okay now. Dig a little deeper to get to the fruit of the matter. Go to verse 2 and take it to the HEBREW. Look up the word ....AGAIN.... where it states that she again bare his brother Abel. The word AGAIN in the Hebrew text was...YACAPH, number 3254 in the Strongs Hebrew dictionary and it means to CONTINUE. or to continue to do the same thing. Eve continued in labor after she gave birth to Cain and she gave birth to Abel after she gave birth to Cain during the same labor episode of giving birth. In essence she had FRATERNAL TWINS,not identical Cain was fathered by Satan and Abel was fathered by Adam but she gave birth to both twins during the same labor event. As it states she >>>>>AGAIN <<<<<<< bare his brother Abel which means that she continued in labor and gave birth to Abel,Adams son after she gave birth to Cain, Satans son. As I stated...DIG DEEPER.
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#437807 May 4, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Comes down to this:
Do you think Peter was the leader of the Apostles or not?
If Christ set up his Church like that, then its safe to say that the next generation of Apostles also had a leader....and the next and next.


By what name shall I hail thee, Martin? Shall I call thee the glorious leader for all the Orthodox Faith? Shall I call thee the holy Coryphaeus (Head), the leader of Divine dogmas that speaketh no errors?" (Byzantine Liturgy for the Feast of St. Martin, Pope of Rome).

In 680-81, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III calls Pope Agatho "the Head of the Church." And while this same council posthumously condemed Pope Honorius I for "heresy" (that is, for "assisting in the base assertions of the heretics" by not immediately condemning the Monothelites), it was clearly understood that Honorius was merely negligent and that he did not directly promote the heresy or speak with the authority of Rome. For example, Pope Agatho himself declares:

"The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church." (Mansi, v. 11, p. 285).

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#437808 May 4, 2013
capitosinora wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem with catholic church is the fact that for very long time shifted from real Christ teaching to pragmatic humanism
Such blather.

The theology of Christ was Jewish, and the word meant "Messiah."

The theology of Jesus that came much later was Catholic-oriented, and that word also meant "Messiah."

You will see the lies, but ONLY when you choose to see them.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#437810 May 4, 2013
The Orthodox church does recognize a role given to the bishop of Rome but what authority does that role give him? The orthodox church looks at the bishop of Rome as the FIRST among EQUALS. Being the bishop of Rome is a role of honor and respect. Obviously the bishop or Rome had a more in depth role in the church due to Rome being the largest of all Christian communities at the time, but does this give the bishop of Rome authority over the other bishops? Absolutely not and it is absurd to think so! The bishop of Rome had no power to interfere with the other eastern bishops unless the other bishops abandoned Christian teaching in which the eastern bishops could also do the same to the bishop of Rome and did! The bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor but not a primacy of authority. The best analogy i ever heard about this issue is the captain on a basketball team. The captain (bishop of Rome) definitely has a position of honor but does not have more of a position then the other four players (eastern bishops) nor does he have authority over the other four players. Only the coach (God) can rule the whole team.

“YESHUA IS LORD”

Since: Apr 07

GAWGIA (GEORGIA)

#437812 May 4, 2013
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>Okay now. Dig a little deeper to get to the fruit of the matter. Go to verse 2 and take it to the HEBREW. Look up the word ....AGAIN.... where it states that she again bare his brother Abel. The word AGAIN in the Hebrew text was...YACAPH, number 3254 in the Strongs Hebrew dictionary and it means to CONTINUE. or to continue to do the same thing. Eve continued in labor after she gave birth to Cain and she gave birth to Abel after she gave birth to Cain during the same labor episode of giving birth. In essence she had FRATERNAL TWINS,not identical Cain was fathered by Satan and Abel was fathered by Adam but she gave birth to both twins during the same labor event. As it states she >>>>>AGAIN <<<<<<< bare his brother Abel which means that she continued in labor and gave birth to Abel,Adams son after she gave birth to Cain, Satans son. As I stated...DIG DEEPER.
Some of the greatest disappointments that I have gone through was when as a child I eventually learned that there was no Santa Claus after being lied to by Adults that there was this man in a red suit that would come down through the chimney and bring gifts. I believed in Santa with all my heart and was absolutely devastated when I learned that there was no Santa after all. Another was when I, having grown up in the church and being taught that Adam was both Cain and Abels father and that he and Eve were driven out of the garden because they ate the wrong produce. When I finally came to a knowledge of the truth,I was so devastated to learn that they were driven out of the garden not because they ate the wrong produce but because of what they did that was much more sinister than eating some fruit that God told them not to eat. The issue of eating forbidden fruit was nothing but a metaphor so to speak of something much more sinister. Yet supposedly mature teachers and preachers have untold millions of the deceived believing that God drove them out of the garden of Eden for eating some forbidden produce and that Adam was Cains father also. When I learned the truth I was so angry at the religious community for having lied to me for so many years though maybe their intentions may have been good.

Nothing can hurt worse than to grow believing something with all your heart only to discover eventually that what you had been taught and believed all your life was nothing but a lie. The powers of darkness has to be behind that deception going forth from the pulpit

I was amazed and so grateful to God when I started digging deeper into His word after He sent me a teacher that could divide the word of God on a level that even babies could understand it if God gave them eyes to see. Many people do not have spiritual eyes to see which is why so many ac tually think that Cain was Adams son and that God drove them out of the garden for eating fruit. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH FRUIT.
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#437813 May 4, 2013
“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord .... nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.”(Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)

So while everyone recognized the authority of Pope Victor to excommunicate it was upon this letter written by Irenaus that he lifted the excommunication as unity of the church was the main goal to begin with.

"In the second century, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, journeyed to Rome to confer with Pope Anicetus regarding the disagreement over the proper date for the celebration of Pascha. Neither was able to convince the other, and they decided that the two practices could coëxist.

The situation was actually messier yet. There existed in practice, because of the way the Hebrew calendar worked, not two but a multitude of dates for the celebration Pascha. Jews and others in the ancient Near East followed a lunar calendar in which each month averaged 29½ days in length. They had twelve months in most years, each month beginning with a new moon. This made the year too short, so an extra, thirteenth month was inserted every two or three years to keep the months in step with the seasons (which depend on the sun rather than the moon).

There were no printed calendars at that time, and no one ever knew exactly how many days there would be in a given month or year. The beginning of a new month was declared when the first sliver of a new moon was sighted in the sky. Of course, observation of the new moon depended on location and weather conditions, thus people in different places often did not start a new month at the same time. Since Pascha was observed on the 14 th of the month†—and that depended on local sighting of the new moon—there was no way for Christians (or Jews, for that matter) to plan a united observance of Pascha.

In the fourth century the Emperor Constantine espoused Christianity and made it not only legal but the favored religion of the Empire. The Church suddenly started growing by leaps and bounds, and he gave public buildings for the Church’s use, but he was perturbed to find out about the different practices regarding the date of Pascha.

http://www.antiochian.org/date-of-pascha.html
Dust Storm

Pennock, 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

Pennock, 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?

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
Pope's visit will change Philippines, Cardinal ... 22 hr Iglesia_Ni_Dinuguan 4
Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis po... Thu pazuzu 85
Edmonton's Coptic Christian community welcomes ... Thu PAUL SHYKORA arts 1
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Wed Married in 8,299
Selfies with Pope Francis cardboard cutouts pop... Sep 10 ELIAS IBARRA 5
Pope Francis pursues a thaw in relations with m... Sep 9 Andrez Lopez 2
Francis' letter to Cubans: Imitate Mary's joy, ... Sep 8 Crusader 1
•••

Pope Benedict XVI People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••