Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 665075 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.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#454369 Jun 20, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
We believe..as in Catholics
Do you still believe in limbo
How can they NOT be with Our Lord??
I read a website on Catholic belief..
It blames the devil for the proliferation of abortion..I get that part..But it says it's because the babies won't be baptized.
Do you honestly think that Our Lord would let the devil prevail with regard to innocent souls.
That they coukd be anywhere but in His loving arms.
Since they were never BORN coukd He have them in stasis to be born somewhere else??
Or in a limbo where He is not.
Instead of waiting for the answers, I would suggest for you to go out and find them for yourself, because the responses you get from others who are bias in their belief, will NOT give you an honest answer.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#454370 Jun 20, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to preach lies.
No, but I can see how you are shielding your eyes from reading my posts.

Maybe you should just pass on over my posts, so you don'thave to worry so much.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#454371 Jun 20, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to preach lies.
Maybe you should begin posting facts that refute my posts, instead of just an opinion.

In truth, for a supposed "Atheist" - none of my posts should matter at all to you, huh?

But somehow, they do......hmmmmmm......
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454372 Jun 20, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>both Oxbore and myself have showed that DAN lied about mary in which she was never said to be "full of grace" as those words are only used twic and never in context with mary.
so it is better that you learn from MODERN DAY SCRIBES and never learn the truth at all from your irreligious system.
please dopnt think that you are right b ecause you beleive the lies that you are told. some day, God is going to hold your chruch accountable and then death and destruction will follow and people like you will b e destroyed in your tracks.
You have been WARNED!!!!!!!!!!
I showed both you and Oxtail where "full of grace" was RE: Mary.

I hope your "MODERN DAY SCRIBES" have better reading skills than you and maybe some integrity.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454373 Jun 20, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of waiting for the answers, I would suggest for you to go out and find them for yourself, because the responses you get from others who are bias in their belief, will NOT give you an honest answer.
You're sending her on a snipe hunt.

How is she to know for sure the disposition of these souls?

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#454374 Jun 20, 2013
Catholics praised those who died as martyrs for the Catholic church. Century after century they canonized them as saints.

They never canonized Jesus the Jew as a Catholic saint and my guess is, they were scared to go THAT far with their flamboyant words, as being superstition they probably believed that if he was real at all, he would put a curse on them for telling such a whopper of a lie.

Yet they were cunning enough to USE the image of that JEW to start a new religion.

Isn't it odd that they called all the others saints, but they never used the term Saint-Jesus, and yet he was supposedly the most important player in the whole GAME concerning the new "Christian" religion.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#454375 Jun 20, 2013
who="Clay "
We've definitely proved you in error these last three yrs. Just because you're to stubborn to admit your error doesn't change the fact. Most onlookers would have converted to Catholicism a long time ago after reading the debates between you, Preston, Old Gee and the Catholics. In fact, I believe you three do more to HELP the Catholic Church than anything.
You can't believe you are right based on this following typical exchange:
Catholics:'Prove that Christ taught sola scripture as the authority on His Ministry'
Confrint:'all scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching'
You lost, Confrint. 2tim 3:16 does not say what well claim it says. Therefore your ENTIRE opinion on sacred scripture falls apart because you based it off a lie to start with.

**********

Catholics have proved nothing of the sort. Scripture IS God-breathed.
You haven't converted anyone on here.

You can insist that some early 'fathers' may have written some stuff, but accepting that as gospel would be something like accepting everything written on this forum as gospel.

It must agree with what IS written...and all of it does not.

KayMarie

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#454376 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist are celebrated as one sacrament by the Early Christians, and today the Eastern Catholics still follow this.
The Catholics in the West, however, separated the sacraments of baptism and confirmation because there were not enough bishops to give out all the sacraments. In the West, the priest baptizes and the bishop confers the sacrament of confirmation. In all three - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit is present.
Ok well Western Confirmation is more similar to what non Catholics do at BAPTISM

The recipient is able to say words of belief. As opposed to being baptized as an infant.

Does the Church still teach as they definitely used to that baby baptism washes away original sin..as in what we have from Adam And Eve.

Or does it wash away all sin..

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#454377 Jun 20, 2013
who="Dan"
A mom looks after her kid and you're finding fault.
Outstanding.
As if Mary could look into the mind of the "town gossip".
Please, KM.

**********

Jesus was a grown man...not a 'kid'.

Mary should NOT have worried about the 'town gossip'. That is not finding fault...simply saying that if she was perfect, she would have known that THEY were wrong.

KayMarie

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#454378 Jun 20, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should just pass on over my posts, so you don'thave to worry so much.
Not likely. Having been a Catholic, you get right into the discussions about what Jesus said and did, and your lies are as noted as the lies of others, who still continue to try in VAIN to make a faithful Jew into a traitor of his own religion.

Had he and his Jewish father been real, you people would all be cursed, and my guess is you would have nothing for a reward in any hereafter, even if a hereafter just happens to be the case.

For such lies, none of you deserve rewards.

That is my opinion.

And when you know better and you don't do better ... the onus is on you.

Had Jesus lived, he would NOT have supported the starting up of Christianity OR Islam. He would NOT have baptized any human on earth as a Christian. He would not have counseled Peter to become a Catholic pope, or to start a new Christian community.

You KNOW that is true!!!

You know it and I know it.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#454379 Jun 20, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Dan"
Luke 1:28.
She is called "full of grace".
She's given the name "full of grace" and in the Greek perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
Remember Greek? You were very insistent on it RE: 2 Tim 3:16.
'St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is.'
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hai...
**********
Neither verse calls Mary 'full of grace'.
KM
kekaritomene in its fullest and best translation means "highly favored", nothing else can be added to that.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#454380 Jun 20, 2013
Selene100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the people of Antioch were the first to be called Christians. That is in the Bible. And the Bishop of Antioch (Ignatius) was the first person to use the word "Catholic". That is found in a first century historical document. So, history and archaeology is on our side.
perhaps your words are factual, however that doesnt mean they go together. many of us on here certainly dont beleive that roman catholics are Christians.

and your actions and the lies told on here are not indictive of a Christlike lifestyle
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454381 Jun 20, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Dan"
A mom looks after her kid and you're finding fault.
Outstanding.
As if Mary could look into the mind of the "town gossip".
Please, KM.
**********
Jesus was a grown man...not a 'kid'.
Mary should NOT have worried about the 'town gossip'. That is not finding fault...simply saying that if she was perfect, she would have known that THEY were wrong.
KayMarie
You're requiring her to be omniscient, and that's God's province.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#454382 Jun 20, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text> kekaritomene in its fullest and best translation means "highly favored", nothing else can be added to that.
Cite your "fullest and best translation", as all I've viewed translate it as "full of grace".
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#454383 Jun 20, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I'm not Catholic myself, I've known quite a few Catholics. Never yet seen or heard one worshiping a cross or a statue or a painting or anything meant to resemble the illusion they have as to how God looks.
I'm kind of tired of Catholic-bashing too. There are legitimate differences between Protestants and Catholics, but to say they are "deluded" or "of the devil" is misguided at best.
As a former "bible only' Protestant for over 35 years (now Catholic)---You must understand that Protestantism "cannot exist" on its own doctrine, beliefs and teaching (without) attacking, bashing, condemning and judging the TRUTH of over 2000 years of Jesus Christs One True Apostolic Catholic Church...... It has absolutely nothing historically or biblically to stand on its own, because sola scriptura (bible only) was never believed by anyone until the 17th century...... It is a "man-made" (half-truth, half-heresy) religion of editorializing the interpretation of the bible, to make it mean--ONLY what each Protestant wants it mean! Since the reformation, it now consists of over 42,000 contradiction, inconsistent and conflicting denominations of "relative truth" bible interpretations, in conflict with each other!!.. God never has been, nor ever will be the author of bible only Protestant confusion and chaos. The TRUTH of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has, is and will always be in Our Lords One True Apsotolic Catholic Church (Matthew 16:13-21 and in the Eucharist (John 6:47-59) Jesus TRUE body and TRUE blood!!!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#454384 Jun 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the same answer I've posted nearly 10 times since yesterday.
John 3:5.
Thanks
John 3:5 Jesus answered,“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."

You know, Dan, I gotta admit that's pretty solid back-up. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that it means that you cannot be saved WITHOUT baptism. After all, we have no reason to think that the thief crucified next to Jesus was baptised, yet we KNOW that HE was saved, because Jesus said so.

Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him,“Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in paradise.”

Baptism is desirable for many reasons, not least of which is that it is one of the means of receiving God's grace. And although we can't see into anyone's heart and know who truly belongs to Jesus and who does not, I personally would question the salvation of anyone who had the chance to be baptised and refused it.

Nevertheless, I still don't see how baptism is REQUIRED for salvation. If a new believer got hit and killed by a bus the day before he was to baptised, do you think the Lord would condemn him instead? God doesn't play "Gotcha" games.

By the way, I was baptised when I was two days old. I wasn't expected to survive, so I was baptised at the hospital where I was born :)

Special to all you pinheads who don't believe in infant baptism: Save your breath. If God is omnipotent--capable of doing ANYTHING--then He is also capable of communicating with a baby, and planting a seed of faith in the baby's heart. I certainly believe He did with me.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#454385 Jun 20, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>

EDITED

1. How was Jesus baptized
2. At what age was Jesus baptized
3. Did Mary have Jesus baptized as a baby
4. Was Jesus baptized by sprinkling or immersion
5. Was the baptism of Jesus the same as your baptism
6. Why was Jesus baptized
6. WHY WAS JESUS BAPTIZED
Jesus was not baptized for the remission, or forgiveness, of sins as we are (Acts 2:38). Jesus had no sin (1 Pet. 2:22). He had no need of remission of sins. Also, John’s baptism was a baptism unto repentance (Acts 19:4). Jesus had no need to repent, since he never committed sin. Jesus was not born into sin because God was his father. So then, why was he baptized?

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.
In Matthew 3:13-15 it says, "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, iI need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied,'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.'" Jesus got baptized to fulfill all righteousness.Matthew 3:13-17

Christ had to be formally inaugurated into the public discharge of his offices. For this purpose he came to John, who was the representative of the law and the prophets, that by him he might be introduced into his offices, and thus be publicly recognized as the Messiah of whose coming the prophecies and types had for many ages borne witness. Jesus is the bridge between the Law and the New Covenant. All righteousness that would end the Law, Jesus was compelled to observe on the side of his flesh from the seed of David. God chose water baptism to be the transfer point from the Law dispensation over into Grace Dispensation, from dead in sins and trespasses unto life, from darkness to light, and from an unholy to a sanctified condition.
==========
Jesus was baptized so he could enter into the Melchizedek priesthood so He could be the High Priest and offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins

Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.

To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:

Washed with water

Exodus 29:1,4, "This is what you are to do to consecrate them, so they may serve me as priests: Take a young bull and two rams without defect" ... 4 “Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the doorway of the tent of meeting, and wash them with water."
==========

2. AT WHAT AGE WAS JESUS BAPTIZED 3. DID MARY HAVE JESUS BAPTIZED AS A BABY
To be consecrated as a priest, Jesus had to be: 1) washed with water - baptism -(Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16). 2) Anointed with oil - the Holy Spirit -(Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16). Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old, Num. 4:3, "from thirty years and upward, even to fifty years old, all who enter the service to do the work in the tent of meeting."

Therefore we can conclude that Jesus began His earthly ministry at the age of 30. Since it went on for 3 1/2 years before Jesus was crucified, it is safe to say that He was 33 at the time of His death

Jesus was baptized at the beginning of His public ministry, at around 30 years of age,
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#454386 Jun 20, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
You Roman Catholics have proven NO ONE WRONG...
THERE'S NOTHING THERE...
Oh is that right!! How do you account for the 1000's and 1000's of bible only Protestant ministers that are converting to Jesus Christs One True Catholic Church. Again--try reading Scott Hahn conversion story as a Baptist minister (along with 5 other seminarians) who converted to the Catholic Faith. We as Catholics ALL KNOW that you won't do that because you (pride and ego) will not allow it!!! YES--there is "NOTHING THERE alright" but if happens to be in your contradicting and conflicting "self interpretation" editorializing of bible verses that you are "forever quoting and interpreting" or better yet (mis-quoting and mis-interpreting) all to your demise and destruction!
Clay

Brooklyn, NY

#454387 Jun 20, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="Clay "
We've definitely proved you in error these last three yrs. Just because you're to stubborn to admit your error doesn't change the fact. Most onlookers would have converted to Catholicism a long time ago after reading the debates between you, Preston, Old Gee and the Catholics. In fact, I believe you three do more to HELP the Catholic Church than anything.
You can't believe you are right based on this following typical exchange:
Catholics:'Prove that Christ taught sola scripture as the authority on His Ministry'
Confrint:'all scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching'
You lost, Confrint. 2tim 3:16 does not say what well claim it says. Therefore your ENTIRE opinion on sacred scripture falls apart because you based it off a lie to start with.
**********
Catholics have proved nothing of the sort. Scripture IS God-breathed.
You haven't converted anyone on here.
You can insist that some early 'fathers' may have written some stuff, but accepting that as gospel would be something like accepting everything written on this forum as gospel.
It must agree with what IS written...and all of it does not.
KayMarie
We believe everything that 2tim 3:16 says.

And Kay, we really don't know if anyone on here was converted into the Catholic faith as a result of these debates. You all should have converted by now. You have been privileged to hear allot more truth than most other protesters.
You know, Patrick Madrid (Catholic Apologists) debated a prominent Baptist Pastor once, and so many in the anti - Catholic audience converted to Catholicism shortly after (Including the own Baptist Pastors daughter) that nobody dares invite him or Dr Scott Hahn to a debate anymore. Its so lopsided it ain't even funny. This forum is no different. There really is nothing more to argue on, when your entire foundation of sola scripture is a proven lie. Everything else you say - about Mary, the Eucharist, Baptism etc, comes crashing down because you're using a lie to hold it up on.

Really, Sola Scripture should start off every debate.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#454388 Jun 20, 2013
1 HOW WAS JESUS BAPTIZED 4. WAS JESUS BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING OR IMMERSION

The chief clue to the story's meaning is the Jordan river. This takes the careful reader back to chapter 3 of the book of Joshua in which, under Joshua's leadership, the people of Israel cross the Jordan into the promised land. The waters of the river (like the waters of the Red Sea in the book of Exodus) stand for the ancient forces of chaos and death. These would overwhelm the people if they were not protected by the word of God, the stone tablets in the Ark of the Covenant which is held up by the priests in the midst of the river so that the people may pass safely on dry ground (Joshua 3).

In the same way, the story of Jesus's baptism tells how Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, leads the way through chaos and death (the Cross) to bring his people to the promised land, the Kingdom of God Jesus is a new Joshua (both names are from the Hebrew y'shua, "God saves") who is not merely a man, but also the Word of God who leads and protects his followers as they pass through death into the new promised land, the Kingdom of God.
JESUS IMMERSED IN THE JORDAN RIVER

First, it must be noted that the expression “baptismal sprinkling” is a contradiction. The Greek term baptizo means to “dip, submerge, immerse.” The Greek historian Polybius (ca. 203-123 B.C.) used the word to describe a sinking ship (1.51.6). In the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the cognate form bapto clearly is distinguished from the terms “sprinkle”(rhantizo), and “pour”(cheo)(see Leviticus 14:15-16).
To speak of “baptismal sprinkling” would constitute a contradiction of terms. The verbs represent entirely different actions.
The argument for spirinkling omes from the term “from”(ASV) is the Greek term apo, which generally means “away from,” and not “out of”(KJV), which normally is expressed by the word ek. But there are several things wrong with this argument.
Apo can be used in the sense of “out of,” as in the case of Luke 24:47, where the gospel was to go forth “from,” i.e.,“out of,” Jerusalem. In fact, occasionally apo and ek are used interchangeably.

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to show them a sign “from”(apo) heaven (Matthew 16:1). However, in the parallel passages, in both Mark and Luke’s accounts, the preposition used is ek, instead of apo.
The reality is, in Mark’s Gospel, scripture represents Jesus as “coming up out of (ek) the water”(1:10). Barnes thus placed entirely too much weight upon the preposition apo in attempting to cast doubt upon the reality that the Lord was immersed in the Jordan.

But Mark also wrote that Jesus was “baptized of John in the Jordan”(1:9). Actually, the preposition, rendered “in” in our common versions (yet see ASVfn), is eis, which means “into.” S.T. Bloomfield (1790-1869), of the Church of England (a church that practices sprinkling as a substitute for immersion) was honest enough to admit that the expression eis ton Iordanen meant that Jesus was baptized “by being plunged into the water”(The Greek Testament With English Notes, Vol. I, p. 158).

Finally, the theological connection between “baptism,” and the burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12), negates the notion that the rite may be performed by sprinkling or pouring. The prospective Christian is “buried” in the water of baptism “with” Christ.

Just as Jesus was raised out of the tomb, so we also are raised from the liquid grave of baptism.

This analogy, among other matters, led John Henry Blunt (1823-1884), another Anglican scholar, to acknowledge (against his own church) that “the primitive mode of baptizing was by immersion”(Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 75

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 As election nears, Pope Francis warns against f... 21 hr Communist In A Dress 20
News Region's Catholic bishop welcomes Pope's stance... Wed 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 10,376
News Pope Francis confers Ratzinger Prizes, pays tri... Nov 29 narako 1
News Opening abortion forgiveness wins praise for Po... Nov 28 GlitterSucks in H... 1
More from around the web