Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 679235 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.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#463180 Jul 17, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
My turn? Its still your turn Tiger.
Catholics go by what was taught from the Apostles. We do not go by whatever we interpret from their writings, 2,000 yrs later.
You SDA people simply saw the Sabbath references in the Bible, and decided to start 'Christian-type' religion based on what you saw. That's no different than the Born Agains and Pentecostals. Your theme is The Sabbath.
Ignatius' writings are important. He knew the Apostles personally and was a validly ordained Bishop by the hands of John or possibly Peter.
A serious Christian would be excited at the insight this man would have on their faith. But not the SDAs. You need to ignore it, because it destroys your 19th century Sabbath cult in seconds.
Anywho, its still your turn Tiger. Where does Christ command a Bible be produced to be the authority on His Church. That's all I ask.
The Catholics teach Christ is the redeemer of the human Race, then have the gall to teach that He singled out only the Catholics to give them "traditions" that they say is necessary....that Bible alone is not enough!!!!!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463181 Jul 17, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
He is in your Orthodox approved church so feel free to smear him.
Oh, he is in our Church so he cannot be questioned.Cannot be questioned why? Cause he is perfect? Bishops cant be questioned? Is that why the sex abuse scandal stops with the priests- cause the Bishop cant be questioned. Bishops dont say or do bad things- right. That explains a lot to me.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#463182 Jul 17, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, he is in our Church so he cannot be questioned.Cannot be questioned why? Cause he is perfect? Bishops cant be questioned? Is that why the sex abuse scandal stops with the priests- cause the Bishop cant be questioned. Bishops dont say or do bad things- right. That explains a lot to me.
That explains the HUGE lump underneath the carpet.lol

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#463183 Jul 17, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice. Unfortunately your beliefs are not supported by scripture because scripture never says the Eucharist is symbolic. Jesus says the bread IS His body, if it was symbolic He would have said it SYMBOLIZES My body.
And the Bible has not the word eucharist in it!!!! Nor the words "pope" "purgatory" "ever virgin" "original sin" "venial sin" "mortal sin:...etc etc etc etc..

However, the fact that your beliefs show a contradiction in the Bible, which all Christians know is infallible, is proof that your beliefs are wrong...

The fact that my beliefs on the matter shows an infallible Bible, proves I am right in my beliefs.
truth

Perth, Australia

#463184 Jul 17, 2013
i don't bealive you for set up anyone can bebishop thisor that under obey law
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
i told you in matrix is so long evil
whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooo
on how many place with how many face..

now
they set up even future for themself but destroy future of others..

i don't care what others nice lips with evil documents think..
accusers is not friends
byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy y
truth

Perth, Australia

#463185 Jul 17, 2013
weapens which others prepeare and destroy others are who and what?
they looks as nice evil lips why..they will used many innocent victim to..but they prepeare something on front whats slip off..then they don't lked that don't you..then they try accuse and play with victims

ones implimented finish its very easy on very very primitive way..
yeppppppppppppppppppppppppp

nobody spend any money on anything
itsvanity everything under sky as well in paralel life too..

if you do to my litlle one anthing you do to me..

when i died i know someone exist who can find out my accusers judges too..very easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyy

byyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463186 Jul 17, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Great, Cliff. You found a site that makes you look smart. What? In Cut and Paste? Maybe you, Metro Phillip, and James Likoudiss can all dress up like cowboys like Metro Phillip did and ride off to convert land together
Cliff ( Dust) since I caught you lying and confronted you with the posts and you continue your stories as you notice I no longer take you seriously. But keep going. You be Dean to my Jerry.
truth

Perth, Australia

#463187 Jul 17, 2013
necu=no..its mean not obey..no
why should be obey my accusers abusers wrong set up corupt judges

entire world if you give me
always will be no
from me
not to obey
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo
nk
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#463188 Jul 17, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Great, Cliff. You found a site that makes you look smart. What? In Cut and Paste? Maybe you, Metro Phillip, and James Likoudiss can all dress up like cowboys like Metro Phillip did and ride off to convert land together
No Herme you gave me your version of History. I'm just wondering since virtually every heresy developed in the East if they checked with the laity. Did the Apostles check with the Laity? So the Arians were right then? I did not say you were a heretic if you don't listen to every thing your patriarchs say. I just find that you give them a profound lack of respect and you dont respect the authority of the church. If you were an Arian you could have disagreed and held your own truth. There are some monophphytes still around maybe you can join them. It is precisely history that is being argued about. We say you changed it. Numerous quotes from Eastern Fathers back up the position. Those discrepancies are being studied and they are not calling each other liars or that they dont know anything about history. I quoted what promininent scholars in YOUR church said. But you dont know what they talked about. You dont know what they agreed upon. You dont know why. You didnt care. You just wanted to rant and attack the Pope. You saying I dont know what about your beliefs or version of history is not the same as disagreeing with it. Protestants wont agree that your church was ever your church. So I wonder if they dont know anything about history or if its just Catholics that you want to say that about. lol You are hopeless.
Myth #3: An Ecumenical Council must be "Ratified" by the Laity

Myth number 3 is that an Ecumenical Council, even if agreed upon by all the bishops, cannot be ratified without the approval of the laity. In this, Orthodoxy gives the VERY wishy-washy reason of: "Well, we are all the Church." Well, yes we are, but that's not how Councils work. For example, the pro-Arian councils after Nicaea were approved by the people of the Eastern Empire (and for over 20 years!). Yet, did that make Arianism orthodox? In the same way, Nicaea was never "approved by the people." It was declared to be so by the bishops and the Emperor. Same goes for all the other Ecumenical Councils including and especially Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority of Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. So, where was the mandate from the laity here?:-)

No, my friend Orthodox myth # 3 is a straw man, created to explain away why the Byzantines backed out of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence -- both cases in which ALL the Eastern Patriarchs approved of Western orthodoxy. This idea that "oh, well, the people must approve of it" is IMPERIAL in nature, not Spiritual or Ecclesiastical at all. For goodness sake, what did the average Greek know about the theology of Filioque?! Ah! But, they did know about the differences between East-West civilizations. And, if the "people" disapproved of Lyon and Ferrara-Florence, it wasn't because the "Holy Spirit" was moving them! Come on!:-) It was because of their bigotry against those "Western barbarians," who -- as we all know -- "couldn't be right." :-)

So, again, Orthodoxy's love affair with Imperium clouds its vision, even in matters of who are the "people of God." Only the Greeks? I think not.:-) What about all the Westerners, and the Non-Chalcedonians? Why didn't "the people" of the West or the Orient refuse to agree with the non-Conciliar heresy? Aren't they anointed by the Spirit thru Baptism too? Or are only the "civilized Byzantines" given this charism?:-)

Myth #4: An Ecumenical Council is Enough

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#463189 Jul 17, 2013
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>Your cute! lol
stop that, no cyber flirting on this forum.
truth

Perth, Australia

#463190 Jul 17, 2013
nicetalkers this andthat
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
in within can be nice destruction too

read real god words
-don't destroy yourself because of me

evil pay heavy price we know who they are
they are nothing and nobodyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
they will find out
it is as it is
many place with many face can be very easy find id..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#463191 Jul 17, 2013
Where are you aunt????

Aunt he be saying: I receive the Precious Blood twice a week.

Drinking and Praying: Proposal Could Tip Irish Priests Over Legal Limit

Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland want to lower the legal blood alcohol level for drivers. Priests are afraid it might affect their ability to motor around after Mass.

Bad Blood: Priests in Ireland are concerned that lowering the legal drinking level for drivers might leave them stranded after Mass.

The job description for a Catholic priest doesn't include a lot of perks -- perhaps one reason that their numbers are shrinking rapidly across the Western world. In Ireland, though, the gig might be further complicated by a new proposal to lower the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers. Priests there are speaking out against the proposal because it could render them legally drunk after performing Mass.

Aunt....why is it that you are drinking the "precious blood" of Christ....and the priests in Ireland are not drinking the "precious blood of Christ", but wine that could get them arrested for DUI???!!!!!

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#463192 Jul 17, 2013

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#463193 Jul 17, 2013
Where you Big Chief Who Sit on Rock with Tail Feathers Hanging Over Edge???

confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
ONE INGEST JESUS INTO HIS HEART BY ACCEPTING HIM AS THEIR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR..
THE TRUE EUCHARIST IS RECEIVING JESUS INTO ONE'S HEART,
BY FAITH
THUS HAVING CONTINUAL COMMUNION WITH HIM..
BEING ABLE TO SAY...
Gal_2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

These are really simple questions...you should have no problem with them...it requires not any spirituality...just common sense.

Who is living in you??? You live by the faith of whom???

Gal_2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#463194 Jul 17, 2013
And BTW its a hisotrical fact that Canon 28 was stricken which you posted in one of your scholarly arguments from unsourced rubbish. Any serious scholar in your church rejects that. The very same types of arguments are being made in the Orthodox church today that Was apologized for by the Bishop when they tried to assert authority they didnt have and stating reasons for it that were not true.

Its never been about where the biggest church or the power center. Thats imperialist thinking. It was where the successor of Peter is. THat is brought forth again and again and again. Because Rome whom paul praised always held fast to the faith. Its really hard to know for sure what the Orthodox believe it varies and if there is a dispute doctrinal or otherwise first among equals and rebellious Bishops. Who cares you all follow God, but as long as the faithful approve its all good. Its like SBC setting up guidlines and then do your own thing. Perfect. They would love to have you if you didnt have all those false teachings and worship things and pray to dead people so to speak.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463195 Jul 17, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
No Herme you gave me your version of History. I'm just wondering since virtually every heresy developed in the East if they checked with the laity. Did the Apostles check with the Laity? So the Arians were right then? I did not say you were a heretic if you don't listen to every thing your patriarchs say. I just find that you give them a profound lack of respect and you dont respect the authority of the church. If you were an Arian you could have disagreed and held your own truth. There are some monophphytes still around maybe you can join them. It is precisely history that is being argued about. We say you changed it. Numerous quotes from Eastern Fathers back up the position. Those discrepancies are being studied and they are not calling each other liars or that they dont know anything about history. I quoted what promininent scholars in YOUR church said. But you dont know what they talked about. You dont know what they agreed upon. You dont know why. You didnt care. You just wanted to rant and attack the Pope. You saying I dont know what about your beliefs or version of history is not the same as disagreeing with it. Protestants wont agree that your church was ever your church. So I wonder if they dont know anything about history or if its just Catholics that you want to say that about. lol You are hopeless.
Myth #3: An Ecumenical Council must be "Ratified" by the Laity
Myth number 3 is that an Ecumenical Council, even if agreed upon by all the bishops, cannot be ratified without the approval of the laity. In this, Orthodoxy gives the VERY wishy-washy reason of: "Well, we are all the Church." Well, yes we are, but that's not how Councils work. For example, the pro-Arian councils after Nicaea were approved by the people of the Eastern Empire (and for over 20 years!). Yet, did that make Arianism orthodox? In the same way, Nicaea was never "approved by the people." It was declared to be so by the bishops and the Emperor. Same goes for all the other Ecumenical Councils including and especially Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority of Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. So, where was the mandate from the laity here?:-)
No, my friend Orthodox myth # 3 is a straw man, created to explain away why the Byzantines backed out of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence -- both cases in which ALL the Eastern Patriarchs approved of Western orthodoxy. This idea that "oh, well, the people must approve of it" is IMPERIAL in nature, not Spiritual or Ecclesiastical at all. For goodness sake, what did the average Greek know about the theology of Filioque?! Ah! But, they did know about the differences between East-West civilizations. And, if the "people" disapproved of Lyon and Ferrara-Florence, it wasn't because the "Holy Spirit" was moving them! Come on!:-) It was because of their bigotry against those "Western barbarians," who -- as we all know -- "couldn't be right." :-)
So, again, Orthodoxy's love affair with Imperium clouds its vision, even in matters of who are the "people of God." Only the Greeks? I think not.:-) What about all the Westerners, and the Non-Chalcedonians? Why didn't "the people" of the West or the Orient refuse to agree with the non-Conciliar heresy? Aren't they anointed by the Spirit thru Baptism too? Or are only the "civilized Byzantines" given this charism?:-)
Myth #4: An Ecumenical Council is Enough
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm
Cliff, that was excellent. Now please explain to us how ants explode when they eat oatmeal.You don't seriously want me to continue debunking the lies and remaking of history. I would if I thought it would help but even when caught with bold face untruths you switch your game, I respond and it goes on ad nauseun.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463196 Jul 17, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
And BTW its a hisotrical fact that Canon 28 was stricken which you posted in one of your scholarly arguments from unsourced rubbish. Any serious scholar in your church rejects that. The very same types of arguments are being made in the Orthodox church today that Was apologized for by the Bishop when they tried to assert authority they didnt have and stating reasons for it that were not true.
Its never been about where the biggest church or the power center. Thats imperialist thinking. It was where the successor of Peter is. THat is brought forth again and again and again. Because Rome whom paul praised always held fast to the faith. Its really hard to know for sure what the Orthodox believe it varies and if there is a dispute doctrinal or otherwise first among equals and rebellious Bishops. Who cares you all follow God, but as long as the faithful approve its all good. Its like SBC setting up guidlines and then do your own thing. Perfect. They would love to have you if you didnt have all those false teachings and worship things and pray to dead people so to speak.
Canon 28 was not stricken. Another one. Stop it!! The Pope that was not recognized as head used a veto he did not have and the ast never mentioned it again and went ahead and did what they were going to do. The powerful Pope cried to the Emperor, who agreed to change a deposed Bishop or so but never enforced 28. My oh my. There is such a detailed history re Canon 28 that is fascinating but you will never learn of it.Have another beer Cliff .I want to hear about the ants.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#463197 Jul 17, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>stop that, no cyber flirting on this forum.
"Your cute" is flirting???

Your: the possessive form of you.
1. Used as a modifier before a noun: your boots; your accomplishments.
2. A person's; one's: The light switch is on your right.
3. Informal Used with little or no sense of possession to indicate a type familiar to the listener: your basic three-story frame house.

BTW:
Believe it or not, the word cowboy did not originate in the USA. Despite its modern implications of sage-brush, cactus and the high chapparal, cowboy was first used in England in the 1620s.

There is, however, a genuinely American equivalent and that is cow-hand, a word from the 1850s which has no suggestion of derogation about it.

You are right about cowboys being black, though. Most of us derive our impressions of the old West from Western movies, none of which accurately depict the demographics of the times. Most cowboys were Mexican and, of the remainder, a large proportion was African-American. In fact, two entire regiments of the western US Cavalry were African-American - the legendary "buffalo soldiers".

Which are you???
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#463198 Jul 17, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Cliff ( Dust) since I caught you lying and confronted you with the posts and you continue your stories as you notice I no longer take you seriously. But keep going. You be Dean to my Jerry.
I didnt lie, but you are lying when you say that. You confronted me with nothing that refutes what I said. However you have lied and deceived from the beginning. If you cant make your case then so be it. I responded to your lie more than once. You repeat the lie rather than give an intelligent response. Expedted. I guess thats what it means to be an Orhtodox Christian. Naw, there are real ones.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#463199 Jul 17, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
No Herme you gave me your version of History. I'm just wondering since virtually every heresy developed in the East if they checked with the laity. Did the Apostles check with the Laity? So the Arians were right then? I did not say you were a heretic if you don't listen to every thing your patriarchs say. I just find that you give them a profound lack of respect and you dont respect the authority of the church. If you were an Arian you could have disagreed and held your own truth. There are some monophphytes still around maybe you can join them. It is precisely history that is being argued about. We say you changed it. Numerous quotes from Eastern Fathers back up the position. Those discrepancies are being studied and they are not calling each other liars or that they dont know anything about history. I quoted what promininent scholars in YOUR church said. But you dont know what they talked about. You dont know what they agreed upon. You dont know why. You didnt care. You just wanted to rant and attack the Pope. You saying I dont know what about your beliefs or version of history is not the same as disagreeing with it. Protestants wont agree that your church was ever your church. So I wonder if they dont know anything about history or if its just Catholics that you want to say that about. lol You are hopeless.
Myth #3: An Ecumenical Council must be "Ratified" by the Laity
Myth number 3 is that an Ecumenical Council, even if agreed upon by all the bishops, cannot be ratified without the approval of the laity. In this, Orthodoxy gives the VERY wishy-washy reason of: "Well, we are all the Church." Well, yes we are, but that's not how Councils work. For example, the pro-Arian councils after Nicaea were approved by the people of the Eastern Empire (and for over 20 years!). Yet, did that make Arianism orthodox? In the same way, Nicaea was never "approved by the people." It was declared to be so by the bishops and the Emperor. Same goes for all the other Ecumenical Councils including and especially Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority of Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. So, where was the mandate from the laity here?:-)
No, my friend Orthodox myth # 3 is a straw man, created to explain away why the Byzantines backed out of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence -- both cases in which ALL the Eastern Patriarchs approved of Western orthodoxy. This idea that "oh, well, the people must approve of it" is IMPERIAL in nature, not Spiritual or Ecclesiastical at all. For goodness sake, what did the average Greek know about the theology of Filioque?! Ah! But, they did know about the differences between East-West civilizations. And, if the "people" disapproved of Lyon and Ferrara-Florence, it wasn't because the "Holy Spirit" was moving them! Come on!:-) It was because of their bigotry against those "Western barbarians," who -- as we all know -- "couldn't be right." :-)
So, again, Orthodoxy's love affair with Imperium clouds its vision, even in matters of who are the "people of God." Only the Greeks? I think not.:-) What about all the Westerners, and the Non-Chalcedonians? Why didn't "the people" of the West or the Orient refuse to agree with the non-Conciliar heresy? Aren't they anointed by the Spirit thru Baptism too? Or are only the "civilized Byzantines" given this charism?:-)
Myth #4: An Ecumenical Council is Enough
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm
You are really distorted.What you quote is a twisted catholic version.

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 Why Melania Trump covers her head one day and n... 4 min Eric 4
News Why did Melania Trump wear a head covering at t... 1 hr nanoanomaly 1
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 4 hr Jasonville 84,711
News What is up with that strange photo of President... 7 hr Chilli J 14
News Pope's Egypt visit offers chance to improve Cat... Fri BB Board 1
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) May 24 Apostolic of anot... 10,545
News How the war-of-words between Trump and Pope Fra... May 23 WhollyConcrete 8
More from around the web