Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 685540 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.

truthprevails

Alpharetta, GA

#442833 May 19, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you got against death? It is god's will that we all die, isn't it?
It says right in your bible that we should stone each other to death. Now that is god's will, so I suggest you stop complaining.
:)
June, you are so woefully ignorant of Sacred Scripture. It was not God's original plan for us to die, but punishment exacted upon us for not trusting God and listening to Satan.

That's why I don't listen to you. You are the voice of the underworld trying to drag souls down to Hell with you.

I have a Savior that has delivered me from eternal death and you have a one way ticket to Hell for listening to the number one demon.

I suggest you trade that in for a ticket to Paradise.
truthprevails

Alpharetta, GA

#442834 May 19, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it. When are you going to start stoning people to death?
:)
We leave that to the Muslims which you so happily defend.
truthprevails

Alpharetta, GA

#442835 May 19, 2013
"Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe." St. Francis of Assisi
marge

Leesburg, GA

#442836 May 19, 2013
truthprevails wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true. Baptists have closed Communion and will only give it to the members of their church.
Closed Communion:
The Baptist Position Stated and Defended
http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_621.html
I'm talking about if just us, the born-agains that post here got together, we could partake in communion together.

We already know as far as each others words go who has been Saved. And for sure believe the same about the Last Supper.

I would even give Preston a great big hug!:)
marge

Leesburg, GA

#442837 May 19, 2013
I have really big Love for my brothers and sisters in Jesus!
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#442838 May 19, 2013
Regina wrote:
<quoted text>
lol....Marge, you can't agree on what time of day it is and everybody knows it. Stop lying.
Should we have grapejuice or wine? Lunch must be quite a great controversy unless they have the munchies like Marge. Its in the bible. Of course everyone is still sleeping right Marge? You said you smoked weed Marge then you didnt. Then it was was for medical purposes. Medical weed in Iowa? Then you said you didnt smoke it then you did. Then you were buying it illegally and distributing to friends? Yeah, Marge the only thing that comes out of your mouth is lies. That is one thing you share with your brothers and sisters. LTM couldnt go a day without telling a lie. You really ought to try to seek some truth for a change. We know its hard for you.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#442839 May 19, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
Whether people of religion go up or down after death is comparable to playing "pop goes the weasel."
With all those hells, it's going to be tough to avoid all of them and try to climb a ladder that might not exist.
:)
I find it interesting that "Hell" is the Pagan Teutonic "abode of the Dead". In the Greek of the NT "Tartarus and Hades" are the Pagan Greek 'abodes of the dead'. The NT never uses "Sheol" the Hebrew 'Abode of the Dead'. Further, "Gehenna" is not a place of torture at all. None of these are anything like the Christian invention of "Hell" which is based more on Dante and Milton than anything in the Bible.

Must be based on "Tradition" LOL
truthprevails

Alpharetta, GA

#442840 May 19, 2013
I depart for the evening with this simple but powerful quote from a Catholic Saint:

""Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven."
-St. Rose of Lima

Peace to all in Christ!
truthprevails

Alpharetta, GA

#442841 May 19, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm talking about if just us, the born-agains that post here got together, we could partake in communion together.
We already know as far as each others words go who has been Saved. And for sure believe the same about the Last Supper.
I would even give Preston a great big hug!:)
Marge, the Baptists consider themselves born agains as well as you do, but they would not give you Communion unless you were a member of their church.

Anyways.. goodnight. I must get some rest to go to work in the morning. Sleep well and peace to all who love the Lord.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442842 May 19, 2013
truthprevails wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because Satan is in control of you!
You are so quick to point out atrocities of Christians, but you never look in the mirror do you thou hypocrite???
Being that I have never killed anyone, harmed a soul in my life, I am clear to tell you that YOU are in danger in Hell fire.
You are trying to lead others into the pit of Hell with you. Shame, shame, shame and double shame be upon you!
I appropriate your atrocities equally. YOU do not. Who is the "hypocrite here?
So I have killed. Do you "know the circumstance" NO Who the hell are you to set yourself as the "judge" or the accuser. THAT is NOT your place, but you have already usurped both your satan and your god.

Maybe you should try walking in the shoes of those you so easily accuse, and see how you fare in the process.
I may have very well experienced more hell than you ever will, at least until you die.
You are contemptuous by your own words.
Regina

Lakewood, NJ

#442843 May 19, 2013
truthprevails wrote:
I depart for the evening with this simple but powerful quote from a Catholic Saint:
""Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven."
-St. Rose of Lima
Peace to all in Christ!
Amen! Beautiful!

St. Rose of Lima, pray for us.
marge

Leesburg, GA

#442844 May 19, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Should we have grapejuice or wine? Lunch must be quite a great controversy unless they have the munchies like Marge. Its in the bible. Of course everyone is still sleeping right Marge? You said you smoked weed Marge then you didnt. Then it was was for medical purposes. Medical weed in Iowa? Then you said you didnt smoke it then you did. Then you were buying it illegally and distributing to friends? Yeah, Marge the only thing that comes out of your mouth is lies. That is one thing you share with your brothers and sisters. LTM couldnt go a day without telling a lie. You really ought to try to seek some truth for a change. We know its hard for you.
We would have grapejuice!

Will see if one of them disagrees with me.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#442845 May 19, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears YOU need to revisit when the "solar" theory was made. I already stated that.
Now you want to move the goalpost to "lunar" motion!
You are dancing in a contest you WILL NOT win.
History is quite accurate on these points, and all the apologetics you want to spew will not change that.
Like I said, all you can do now is attempt to move the goalposts, obfuscate, or outright lie...and even then I have proved you wrong with historical fact time and again.
Originally, the question was- exactly when and where did the catholic church(papacy) contribute to Galileo's research.
All you have done is dance around the entire question by deflection and obfuscation of the intended query...You know why, and so do I. You have absolutely no proof of your lie to begin with... and it was pure rhetoric and baseless rhetoric.
Your effort to conceal the fact that you are lying has cost you even more embarrassment attempting to cover the original lie.
I already warned you that you were going to go down this path, but your arrogance in ignorance has caused you to make a complete fool of yourself.
You are shooting yourself in the foot...your credibility is sinking like the Titanic...by your own arrogance, and your inability to even answer the actual query.
Yawn...The poster being addressed was saying that science flourished after Luther. The article I gave you and many others clearly note copernicus and others and that the church did not have a problem with it neither did the Pope. It was shen it was used to challenge the prevailing view in science as fact and mocking the Pope who had given him a way to do it without upsetting protractors. I said Galileo was allowed to continue research and he was. He just no longer presented his theories as fact or promote helocentrism. Obviously some of his theories were proven wrong. The fact is Jesuits continued to do science they did not demand to jump into a theological challenge nor did they feel the need to mock the church and prevailing scientific views. My point was the church funded science. I already stated the reasons and the article and many others point out what was presented before any trial took place and what that implied. I obfuscated nothing you sanctimonious ass. The church stated it was wrong in its treatment of galileo but its not the gotcha card that many want it to be. Furhtermore its not in any way an argument to say the church flourished after Luther. lol Your still a genius in Neverland though. lol

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#442847 May 19, 2013
Here are the United States' oldest colleges (25), in order of date founded:
1 1618 College of Henricopolis (burned 1622)Jamestown, VA
2 1636 Harvard University..Cambridge, MA
1693 College of William & Mary Williamsburg, VA
4.1696 St. John's College.Annapolis, MD
5.1701 Yale University........New Haven, CT
6.1740 University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PA
7.1742 Moravian College & Theological Inst Bethlehem, PA
8.1743 University of Delaware Newark, DE
9.1746 Princeton University .Princeton, NJ
10.1749 Washington & Lee UniversityLexington, VA
11.1754 Columbia UniversityNew York, NY
12.1764 Brown UniversityProvidence, RI
13.1766 Queen's College (now Rutgers Univ.)Newark, NJ
14.1769 Dartmouth College Hanover, NH
15.1770 College of Charleston Charleston, SC
16.1772 Salem College Winston-Salem, NC
17.1775 Hampden-Sydney College Hampden-Sydney, VA
18.1780 Transylvania University Lexington, KY
19.1782 Washington CollegeChestertown, MD
20.1783 Dickinson College...Carlisle, PA
21.1785 University of GeorgiaAthens, GA
22.1789 Georgetown University CATHOLIC
23.1791 University of Vermont Burlington, VT
24.1795 Union College.........Schenectady, NY
25.1794 Bowdoin College......Brunswick, ME
26.1795 University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC
truth

Perth, Australia

#442848 May 19, 2013
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#442849 May 19, 2013
Thats science flourished. as Luther was very tolerant of helioentrism. lol Yeah science exploded after that. lol At Catholic Universities anyway.

Well kids I gotta count denominations now. So many its hard to not fall asleep. I will throw a blackthuderdud for a deeper sleep. lol Have a nice week Catholics. A couple of hours in this insanse asylum a week is enough. Looks like a new herd of brain dead atheists to up the fundie dischord. Marge will get them all on the same page. ;0 zzz
truth

Perth, Australia

#442850 May 19, 2013

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#442851 May 19, 2013
Bishop of Rome election of the people

1 At first the bishop of Rome was chosen like all other bishops: through a general election of the people.
During the first millennium, the norm was for bishops in any diocese to elected by both the people and the priests — the bishop of Rome was no exception. At this time, the election of a bishop tended to occur in three distinct stages. First was the testimonium, at which the candidates’ qualifications were attested to. Second was the suffragium, during which the community voted for one candidate over others. Third was the judicium, where the community ratified the results.

Celestine I wrote “Let no bishop be given to a community against its will; the consent and desire of the clergy, people, and nobility is required.”

Leo the Great wrote “No consideration allows making bishops of those who have not been chosen by the clerics, sought for by the people, and consecrated by the provincial bishops with the consent of the metropolitan.”

Recorded public elections (236–492)

Cyprian of Carthage provides the earliest written evidence of papal election.
The election of Fabian in 236 is related by the legend of Eusebius of Caesarea: a dove landed on Fabian's head and "thereupon the people, all as if impelled by one divine spirit, with one united and eager voice cried out that he was worthy, and immediately they set him on the episcopal seat".This anecdote makes clear that "the choice of bishop was the public concern for the entire Christian community of Rome

The next available evidence comes from the SCHISM BETWEEN NOVATIAN AND CORNELIUS, both elected bishop by their own factions, and both writing to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage for support. Cyprian sided with Cornelius, writing that:

Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the choice of God and of His Christ, by the favorable witness of almost all of the clergy, by the votes of the laity then present, and by the assembly of bishops.

2 Over time both bishops and nobility in the area around Rome took on more and more of a role in electing Rome’s bishop.

The influence of Emperor Constantine I would help solidify a strong role for the Roman emperor in the selection process

Damasus persuaded the Emperor to decree him "bishop of bishops Even with this new title, however, the method of selection of the bishop of Rome remained much the same. Both the clergy and the laity continued to participate in the selection, along with local and imperial politics.

Elections of the same manner continued largely undisputed until Pope Simplicius, who was terminally ill for enough of his papacy to devote time to succession issues, who decreed that the minister of Germanic general Odoacer, a Roman nobleman, would have the power of approval over his successor (there was no longer a western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus having been deposed in 476): the result was Pope Felix III, the first patrician pope.

Theodoric the Great, the Ostrogoth king of Italy (and an Arian) proceeded to decree that reigning bishops would be able to designate their own successors, ending the participation of the laity for at least a half-century. Other trends can be observed, as well, such as father-to-son succession

This process was used without serious issue until the death of Pope Felix Iv, who had given his Pallium to Pope Boniface Ii on his deathbed in 530 and decreed excommunication of any who refused to accept the succession.the Roman Senate disliked the lack of election and denounced felix, affirming a decree of Pope Anastasius Ii, which had prohibited the practice of a pope designating a successor.

3. Eventually the will of the people was consulted on only a perfunctory basis — and sometimes not at all.

4 It eventually came to pass that popes had to be ratified by the emperor, not by the people of Rome they would be serving. This pointed to the fact that popes became more involved with European politics than with local pastoral duties

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#442852 May 19, 2013
There is tremendous confusion concerning the early "lists" of the bishops of Rome, and for good reason. Different sources give different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the church at Rome. All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later, and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as "ancient." No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other, or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular authority
N.D. Kelly's work is definitely a standard in the arena of historical theology. In fact, Kelly himself is considered one of the foremost authorities on Patristic Church history from the 20th century.

1st century 1 33 – 64/67 St Peter 2 64/67(?)– 76/79(?) St Linus 3 76/79(?)– 88/92 St Anacletus
4 88/92 – 97 St Clement I 5 97/99 – 105/107 St Evaristus
2nd century 6 105/107 – 115/116 St Alexander I 7 115/116 – 125 St Sixtus I
8 125 – 136/138 St Telesphorus 9 136/138 – 140/142 St Hyginus

When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), church historian J.N.D. Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time! Only with Hyginus does he say that the monarchical episcopate is beginning to emerge, and does so with Pius 1, 142-155 A.D. Historically speaking pope Pius I (142-155) was the first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome. Although the official lists give the names of several “popes” during the first decades, it is more likely that they simply presided over a council of elders. The first pope who actually is a single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155).

Many decades ago, another Catholic scholar, A. Van Hove, wrote this about early bishops:

This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is understood by the term today. This is proved first by the example of Jerusalem, where James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, held the first place, and afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor of which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning of the second century the monarchical episcopate existed, for Ignatius does not write as though the institution were a new one.

In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century (Van Hove A. Transcribed by Matthew Dean. Bishop. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Imprimatur.+John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442853 May 19, 2013
truthprevails wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you know of Jesus' teachings since you are a God denying atheist? What would you know of God?
You are nothing more than an ignorant tool of Satan trying to deceive the world as you did in the beginning:
"Surely you will not die!!"
Anyone who listens to your voice, listens to the lies of Satan!
Jesus said that His sheep listen to His voice and will not be fooled by the wiles of the wolf seeking to scatter the sheep!
(1)First off- I am not an atheist(unless anyone who is not cathaholic is atheist).

(2)The rest of your post is nothing but the hate you harbor within your soul, and your wanting to usurp your satan...which only shows your true spirit(hate).

(3) You must be a very poor "sheep" as you have no clue whatsoever you accuse, and just "make it up to suit your hatred".

You must have very deep rooted mental problems revolving around hatred to even act like you do.

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) Wed Married in 10,583
News Boston cardinal, Jewish leaders have Holocaust ... (Feb '09) Aug 12 Jeremy 24
News Evangelical Trump supporters want meeting with ... Aug 9 Ms Sassy 1
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) Aug 8 -Prince Of Darkness- 84,840
News Pope 'loves China', Vatican official says on tr... Aug 8 Harold 2
News Pope Francis accepts resignation of Boston Auxi... Jul 29 Anti- 2
News 'That's all he wanted': Spicer, a devout Cathol... Jul 25 misleading troller 2
More from around the web