Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 687346 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.

OldJG

Rockford, IL

#455019 Jun 21, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Let me get this straight. The Roman Catholics on this forum believe the catholic church and the Roman Catholic church are the same animal. Correct?
<quoted text>
Thank you Seraphima. I take it bow wow means yes. LOL LOL
Might I add, without judgement, your posts with Regina are very angry. At one time you two were friends, correct? Please do not allow her to reduce you to her level. Instead of going down to her level....lift her up to your level. Forgive her. When you forgive her there will be two people set free and one of them will be you. You are a wonderful woman of God and I appreciate your honesty and kind spirit.
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>I dont know about lifting her up. I would need a forklift to do that.She's pretty heavey with meanness! LOL..
Seraphima, I know you are joking. In your own strength we cannot lift up another but the One who can will do so if you ask Him. He loves us so much.
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#455020 Jun 21, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey cowboy ..lets nit get carried away
They all from towns along the way travelled together as families.
I can see his it happened if there were several children younger to take care of
Jesus was almost Bar Mitzvah age.
And besides it happened to make the point..He was about His Fathers business.
And maybe to remind us ..he could read scripture perhaps!!!!! And keep up with the teachers!!!
They would nit have listened to sn illiterate Gallikean young man..he had been taught in Bar Mitzvah
Class with others his age..but then also he had nuch more knowledge and
understanding of those scriptures
At least you're a rational Evangelical. Be thankful Preston or OldG aren't your Pastors.
Jesus was twelve yrs old when He was left behind. That's not a child in those days. In three yrs, He would have likely been married with children if He was any other kid.
And you're right. The town traveled in a caravan of hundreds and they didn't all hold a long rope like kindergarteners on a field trip.
You must see that certain self proclaimed Pastors on here are so far removed from Christianity they are unrecognizable. They will stop at nothing to be 'right'. If that mean trashing the Mother of Jesus Christ just because Catholics honor her in a unique way, then they will.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455021 Jun 21, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="wilderide"
Not to be worried about? You seem to be suggesting that there is no way to determine who is receiving messages from God and who isn't, and that isn't a problem. So then Christians should be skeptical of each other by default. How would such a religion work? Moreover, why are there any church leaders if they can't be trusted?
**********
Calm down...this is not a wild ride for those who KNOW HIM. It's not my business to judge others...He will take care of them.
We are all in the 'act' of learning...and those who are ignorant will learn eventually.
Those who are willfully going wrong, will continue on their way.
If YOU really want to know the Truth, get into His Word, and LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY. HE is a very good teacher.
KayMarie
Do you believe that the god that gives you personal messages, also is generous enough to give personal messages of truth to Muslims???

:<(
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455022 Jun 21, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Does God have no control over Original Sin? I'm pretty sure in Genesis 3 that God is the one conferring Original Sin.
So again, is God just, or not?
Actually Genesis relates that Adam and Eve visited original sin upon themselves.

As they were warned of the consequences, committed the act anyway, and God followed through on His end of the agreement, I'd conclude here that God was "just".
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455023 Jun 21, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
If you noticed - your original statement included:
"the original meaning".
I proved you incorrect.
Own it and then move on.
The original meaning "to the archers."

Isn't it interesting how we can PLAY with words???

:)

Mary had a little sheep
And with the sheep she went to sleep
The sheep turned out to be ram
And Mary had a little lamb
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455024 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Original sin isn't the same thing as committed sins.
Can you fall short of your own sin???

:)
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455025 Jun 21, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't understand the whole Mary thing. In the Bible she has a very minimal part, aside from being a means to an end in creating Jesus (never mind the whole "impregnation without prior permission" thing).
Yes, other than being the earthly vessel through which God sent His Son to us, pretty minimal part in the whole thing.
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

#455026 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The "distinction" was made at the Reformation.
Until then, Christian belief and practice held that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Jesus.
And you read that in the Acts.and the epistles...

.that they did nit just tell if what He said in the upper room and bless the bread and wine in remembrance

But told the believers that they we're ACTUALLY transforming the bread
And wine
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455027 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Genesis relates that Adam and Eve visited original sin upon themselves.
If Jehovah created the first man and woman knowing they would be sinners, Jehovah committed the original sin.
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

#455028 Jun 21, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you're a rational Evangelical. Be thankful Preston or OldG aren't your Pastors.
Jesus was twelve yrs old when He was left behind. That's not a child in those days. In three yrs, He would have likely been married with children if He was any other kid.
And you're right. The town traveled in a caravan of hundreds and they didn't all hold a long rope like kindergarteners on a field trip.
You must see that certain self proclaimed Pastors on here are so far removed from Christianity they are unrecognizable. They will stop at nothing to be 'right'. If that mean trashing the Mother of Jesus Christ just because Catholics honor her in a unique way, then they will.
As I said I have never ever heard such a thing ir read it ..
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455029 Jun 21, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you fall short of your own sin???
:)
I'm not tracking you here.

Not sure I want to, but run it by me again, but please rephrase.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455030 Jun 21, 2013
Not even one Catholic will openly admit that they believe Jesus converted to Catholicism ... yet they brag that Jesus will save ONLY Catholics.

Lies layered upon lies.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#455031 Jun 21, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
First and foremost, Old Jay Gee, you are no authority on Our Lords Ministry; you do not get to dictate the Bible.
Infant Baptism is the initiation into Christianity. This came from the Apostles as evident by the writings of their Disciples which you ignore, because you have to.
The idea is for the two parents to raise their children in the covenant of marriage, starting with Baptism; the new circumcision. The Baptized child is a member of the Church.
I'm sorry old Jay gee, your new and strange opinion on Baptism started in the 20th century. Its not what the Apostles taught.
Cly said, quote, "nfant Baptism is the initiation into Christianity. This came from the Apostles as evident by the writings of their Disciples which you ignore, because you have to." End quote.

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

WOW Cly, the apostles sure lived a long time if they performed "infant baptisms" in 370. Gosh Cly, isn't that about the time Emperor Constantine created the Roman Catholic church? Oops, you knew that already, right?

In church history there is no record of infant baptism until the year 370. And how did it come about? It resulted from the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the teaching that baptism is essential to salvation. It was natural for those holding this teaching to believe that everybody should be baptized as soon as possible, and so baptism of unconscious infants came into vogue among many of the churches. These two grievous errors, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, according to reliable historians, have caused more bloodshed and persecution than all other errors combined.

It is reliably estimated that over fifty million Christians were put to death during the "Dark Ages" covering twelve or thirteen centuries, mainly because they rejected these two errors and insisted that salvation was the gift of God, apart from works or ceremonies.

The professed conversion of Emperor Constantine in 313 AD was looked upon by many as a great triumph for Christianity. As a matter of fact, it was the greatest tragedy of church history. It resulted in the union of church and state and the establishment of an hierarchy which afterward developed into the Roman Catholic system, which of course is not the church of God at all, but a hateful counterfeit of it. It is doubtful that Constantine was ever truly converted. At the time of his supposed vision of the sign of the cross he "promised to become a Christian," but he was not baptized until near death, having postponed the act in the belief that baptism washed away all past sins, and he wanted all his sins to be in the past tense before he was baptized.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455032 Jun 21, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
And you read that in the Acts.and the epistles...
.that they did nit just tell if what He said in the upper room and bless the bread and wine in remembrance
But told the believers that they we're ACTUALLY transforming the bread
And wine
I guess what I mean is that what Jesus DID say, like 8 times in John 6, was that it IS His body and blood that we are to partake in.

Not something that "represents His body and blood" or some such.

Hope I didn't misunderstand what your post meant to convey.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455033 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, other than being the earthly vessel through which God sent His Son to us, pretty minimal part in the whole thing.
Did the god of the Jews send his son "personal delivery" to Catholics to have and hold forever???

How odd!!!

I wonder if the god of Jews is aware of his son's captivity???

My guess is, there was no son OR no god!
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455034 Jun 21, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
If Jehovah created the first man and woman knowing they would be sinners, Jehovah committed the original sin.
So, omniscience makes God culpable for sin?

Hmmm.

Not sure you made a strong case here, June.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455035 Jun 21, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
"nfant Baptism is the initiation into Christianity.
Not only infant baptism. Jesus was a full-grown man of the Jewish faith, and according to Catholic theologians he lusted to be baptized by John the Catholic Baptist.

It couldn't have happened after his crucifixion, so he must have been baptized a Catholic before he died on the cross.

NO wonder the faithful Jews killed Jesus. No wonder at all!

Theology is BUNK!
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#455036 Jun 21, 2013
quoted text>
So baptism removes "original sin"? Really? If so, who do you keep on sinning after your baptism if the sin is removed?
The term “original sin” deals with Adam’s sin of disobedience in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and its effects upon the rest of the human race. Original sin can be defined as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.” The doctrine of original sin focuses particularly on its effects on our nature and our standing before God, even before we are old enough to commit conscious sin.
<quoted text>
If dumb had a name it would be "Dan". You are the most moronic self-righteous Roman mackerel snapper on this forum.
Dan stated baptism washes away "original sin" and now Dan is back pedaling like a good little Roman. You never answered what I originally asked about, guess what, "baptism and original sin". Here it is ONE MORE TIME Danny boy....
So baptism removes "original sin"? Really? If so, who do you keep on sinning after your baptism if the sin is removed?
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Original sin isn't the same thing as committed sins.
Even I know that and I'm "the most moronic self-righteous Roman mackerel snapper on this forum".
Doesn't speak terribly well of you.
Again, no answer. Just more Roman Catholic rhetoric.

Here it is ONE MORE TIME Danny boy....actually now TWO MORE TIMES

So baptism removes "original sin"? Really? If so, who do you keep on sinning after your baptism if the sin is removed?

Come on Danny boy, we are all waiting for the reason you keep sinning. We thought the "original sin" was washed away at your SPRINKLING. Oops, I meant POURING. Oops, I meant what you call "baptism". Come on Danny boy, SPEAK!
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#455037 Jun 21, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
Cly said, quote, "nfant Baptism is the initiation into Christianity. This came from the Apostles as evident by the writings of their Disciples which you ignore, because you have to." End quote.
The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.
WOW Cly, the apostles sure lived a long time if they performed "infant baptisms" in 370. Gosh Cly, isn't that about the time Emperor Constantine created the Roman Catholic church? Oops, you knew that already, right?
In church history there is no record of infant baptism until the year 370. And how did it come about? It resulted from the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the teaching that baptism is essential to salvation. It was natural for those holding this teaching to believe that everybody should be baptized as soon as possible, and so baptism of unconscious infants came into vogue among many of the churches. These two grievous errors, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, according to reliable historians, have caused more bloodshed and persecution than all other errors combined.
It is reliably estimated that over fifty million Christians were put to death during the "Dark Ages" covering twelve or thirteen centuries, mainly because they rejected these two errors and insisted that salvation was the gift of God, apart from works or ceremonies.
The professed conversion of Emperor Constantine in 313 AD was looked upon by many as a great triumph for Christianity. As a matter of fact, it was the greatest tragedy of church history. It resulted in the union of church and state and the establishment of an hierarchy which afterward developed into the Roman Catholic system, which of course is not the church of God at all, but a hateful counterfeit of it. It is doubtful that Constantine was ever truly converted. At the time of his supposed vision of the sign of the cross he "promised to become a Christian," but he was not baptized until near death, having postponed the act in the belief that baptism washed away all past sins, and he wanted all his sins to be in the past tense before he was baptized.
If I prove you in error, will you acknowledge it? Of course not, so why would I bother.
Infant Baptism was recorded much earlier than Constantine.
I want to say it was Martyr or Iraneus around the 200 AD. I don't remember exactly.
Like I said, you'll disregard it anyway.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Quesnel, Canada

#455038 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
So, omniscience makes God culpable for sin?
Hmmm.
Not sure you made a strong case here, June.
Nothing could make a strong case in your indoctrinated brain.

If you had all the power to create and you knew that what you created was going to cause suffering, would you still create it???

I wouldn't. Yet that is what you accuse a god of doing when you claim he knows all ... he knew Adam and Eve would sin and have to suffer for sin ... but he went ahead with his plan anyway.

How omniscient is THAT???

Only an idiot would adhere to such nonsense as being based on truth.

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) Fri Eyes on Christ 10,638
News Boston cardinal, Jewish leaders have Holocaust ... (Feb '09) Sep 19 Tom Fontaine 42
News Catholic clergy fires back after Bannon criticism Sep 11 South Knox Hombre 1
News Evangelical Trump supporters want meeting with ... Aug '17 Ms Sassy 1
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) Aug '17 -Prince Of Darkness- 84,839
News Pope 'loves China', Vatican official says on tr... Aug '17 Harold 2
News Pope Francis accepts resignation of Boston Auxi... Jul '17 Anti- 2
More from around the web