Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 670273 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

#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.

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.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455039 Jun 21, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Guess to your heart's content, June.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455040 Jun 21, 2013
OldJG wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
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!
You're insisting that original sin is the capability to commit sin.

That's not what it is and no one's asserted this (except, you, I guess, here). So, false premise on your part (again).
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455041 Jun 21, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"I wouldn't" isn't really you making a case, June.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#455042 Jun 21, 2013
967
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>as long as you have been on here . you have claimed to show us your proof, yet we never see it coming from you. you have been a liar eve since you crawled out of wherever you come from.
I told you and showed you that the phrase is only used twice in the NT and never used with mary in mind.
even a aramiac Bible shows that steven was full of grace.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But Estephanos was full of grace and power and was doing signs and wonders among the people.
now can you understand [plain English] lol
And Dan is calling his pope a dope...his piped piper from Rome approved the following Scripture: And coming to her, he said,“Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

I says not "full of grace"....
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#455043 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


http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Anthony MN

Saint Paul, MN

#455044 Jun 21, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
All BEFORE Constantine. I think Old Jughead is really a 14 year old girl playing bible on an old Compaq computer.

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared,'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
Dan

Omaha, NE

#455045 Jun 21, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
God knowing what was to transpire doesn't equate to Him being culpable of committing sin.

That was what you put out there.

The rest of your post here is you projecting.
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#455046 Jun 21, 2013
A challenge to the "true Church."
www.scribd.com/doc/149235714/Stealing ...
Weep either out of sorrow or for joy!

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#455047 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Not exactly. Adam and Eve were warned that, if they are from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would die. Children were never discussed, never mind threatened. In any case, if A & E did not know good from evil prior to eating from the tree, could they have known disobedience was "bad" to begin with? Seems to me God was supposed to be the good caretaker of two people that naive. And regardless of all that, A & E's ancestors can hardly be held responsible for anything they did. If you grandfather committed some atrocity, should you and your children be held responsible for that?

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#455048 Jun 21, 2013
who="wilderide"
For that matter, if it's "human nature", then what of the one who created the humans? And why isn't that creator culpable for the characteristics of it's creation?
*********

He IS, but He was kind enough to give us a choice in who we are, and what we do.
You choose your own characteristics...but He also makes US responsible for our choices.

Wouldn't you hate to be a creature that had to do everything in a certain manner, even when you longed to do something else?

KayMarie
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#455049 Jun 21, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said I have never ever heard such a thing ir read it ..
It honestly makes my stomach turn when I talk to Preston and Old Gee. I know they don't define Christianity, so it doesn't directly affect me.
But I'm guessing they are influential amongst their circles though, and I cringe when I think of those people who are being introduced to what 'they think is Christianity' by those guys.

Rose, being a Baptized Catholic and recipient of First Communion, you could simple go to Confession and receive Our Lord in the Eucharist without ever going to any RCIA classes etc.

Slowly but surely, people are coming into the Catholic faith. We are seeing many notable converts and ex career Ministers from Protestantism. Its rather hush hush in the media, but its true.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#455050 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.
So you aren't a Catholic then? I was hoping to have a Catholic explain why Mary takes such center stage in their sect. Is there some reason Jesus cannot be prayed to directly for them?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#455051 Jun 21, 2013
Ooops!

if they are from the Tree = if the *ate* from the tree
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#455052 Jun 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You're insisting that original sin is the capability to commit sin.
That's not what it is and no one's asserted this (except, you, I guess, here). So, false premise on your part (again).
No no Danny boy. You said baptism washes away "original sin". Now you are just lying. Try again. Did you or did you not say "baptism washes away original sin"? In fact you have repeatedly justified infant baptism to wash away "original sin".

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#455053 Jun 21, 2013
who="rosesz"
As such baby baptism has nothing to do with salvation unless you die before the age of reason???
Salvation is through the Redemption bought on the Cross. We in a heartfelt and KNOWING manner must accept
That salvation comes through the Cross and lay oursekves at HIS feet in repentance and have faith provided by
HIS free gift of grace.
Then we can be baptized.
Though personally I see nothing wrong with baby Baptism or dedication.
The CC confirms Baptism with Cinfirmation when they recirvr ghd Holy Spirit..but again this is
Done by rite and age.

*********
Rite (ritual) and age. Choosing HIM from the heart is not part of the process.
Some children are fortunate enough to have believing parents who teach them about the gospel.

KayMarie

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#455054 Jun 21, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="wilderide"
For that matter, if it's "human nature", then what of the one who created the humans? And why isn't that creator culpable for the characteristics of it's creation?
*********
He IS, but He was kind enough to give us a choice in who we are, and what we do.
You choose your own characteristics...but He also makes US responsible for our choices.
Wouldn't you hate to be a creature that had to do everything in a certain manner, even when you longed to do something else?
KayMarie
But if God knows your fate, then free will is impossible.

And if Original Sin exists, then I certainly have no choice about that.
Clay

Lawrence, MA

#455055 Jun 21, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
All BEFORE Constantine. I think Old Jughead is really a 14 year old girl playing bible on an old Compaq computer.
"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).
"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).
"Polycarp declared,'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).
"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
Thank you Anthony. I really didn't want to go thru the hassle of using my phone to research exact dates and authors.
I do remember reading that most of Protestantism Baptizes infants - Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians etc - and its basically just the 20th century Evangelical movement that condemns it. I find that interesting.
Thanks.

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 discusses climate, immigrants in historic ... (Sep '15) 31 min WelbyMD 47
News Where Is the Place for Devout Gay Families in t... (Oct '15) Feb 17 True Christian wi... 49
News Vatican will finance adult stem cell research (Apr '10) Feb 12 Pessimistic1 29
News Prayers To Mother Mary 'Cured Lung Cancer' (Jan '10) Feb 11 Phart Girlishly 323
News Pope sings on CD for charity (Dec '09) Feb 11 Phart Musically 31
News Woman Knocks Over Pope Benedict XVI At Christma... (Dec '09) Feb 11 Phart Athletically 165
News Pope illuminates 'tree' via Tablet (Dec '11) Feb 11 Phart Seasonally 23
More from around the web