Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 640802 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: 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.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#463200 Jul 17, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Straight from the mouth of a true Christian from the TRUE CHURCH...BRAVO!!
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#463201 Jul 17, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I already quoted the letter from the Bishop apolozing for it. Its on file. The numerous statements made at the council are matters of record. Your fiction is not. I think you had too many beers as you might actually believe something that comes out of your mouth. It was rejected period. It was a false statement even how it was written. It was a power play and it failed like the attempts before to usurp authority from elsewhere rejected by Rome. The pope was able to save Chrysostom the first time, but he was killed the second when the east rebelled against the truth again. Its no surprise to me why Putin wants a big hand in your church. All truth that guy. You have a lot in common. lol

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463202 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.

edited due to space babbling

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 after 50 changes Rome cant even keep its Mass straight let alone the faith.OK the East who look to the people-thats Imperial. And the West that looks to the Monarch Pope is spiritual.ok ok calm down.You really cant fly. Come off of the roof now.The mandate at Chalcedon was 2 schools of thought battling- Alexandria and Antioch Mr History. Antioch: Nestorius Eutychus Monophysitism. And a heresy was proposed. Where the Catholics would have absorbed it cause they are so proud of their numbers the Orthos would not compromise the faith.The faith that was always believed.Catholics would have absorbed them through some sort of invention or doublespeak.Apparently you are ok believing that was not fully andivined fully human.Bring them into your church. ore numbers.
truth

Canning Vale, Australia

#463203 Jul 18, 2013
god madness is bigger then all your smart people..
heaven=neva eh

not obey
necuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
ucen u ljubavi skucen=pavle savle

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#463204 Jul 18, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? DO YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS ATTACK ON MY HUSBAND? Are you that evil to continue attacking him knowing that he is a seriously ill man???Do not attack him for what I have said and done!Do you get pleasure from doing this to him?? Drop the point and move on..act the Christian you claim to be! Your now bordering on BULLYING!!! stop it now!!!!
truth

Canning Vale, Australia

#463205 Jul 18, 2013
ion=can go anywhere

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463206 Jul 18, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
I already quoted the letter from the Bishop apolozing for it. Its on file. The numerous statements made at the council are matters of record. Your fiction is not. I think you had too many beers as you might actually believe something that comes out of your mouth. It was rejected period. It was a false statement even how it was written. It was a power play and it failed like the attempts before to usurp authority from elsewhere rejected by Rome. The pope was able to save Chrysostom the first time, but he was killed the second when the east rebelled against the truth again. Its no surprise to me why Putin wants a big hand in your church. All truth that guy. You have a lot in common. lol
You are incredible. e wrote that letter cause he humbled himself to the Pope's ego and to appease the Pope. The East never followed what the Pope had said.Apparently they fooled you too.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#463207 Jul 18, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Cliff after 50 changes Rome cant even keep its Mass straight let alone the faith.OK the East who look to the people-thats Imperial. And the West that looks to the Monarch Pope is spiritual.ok ok calm down.You really cant fly. Come off of the roof now.The mandate at Chalcedon was 2 schools of thought battling- Alexandria and Antioch Mr History. Antioch: Nestorius Eutychus Monophysitism. And a heresy was proposed. Where the Catholics would have absorbed it cause they are so proud of their numbers the Orthos would not compromise the faith.The faith that was always believed.Catholics would have absorbed them through some sort of invention or doublespeak.Apparently you are ok believing that was not fully andivined fully human.Bring them into your church. ore numbers.
Honey for real drop it...she is not worth it.Nick please

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#463209 Jul 18, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
"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???
I never said anything about cowboys being black.

what is the matter with you?
truth

Canning Vale, Australia

#463210 Jul 18, 2013
try ion with cristal any glass in your house..
now
why i am wrong

about what
your invisible guests
evil is evil

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#463211 Jul 18, 2013
hey oxbore, you forgot to put your link up.

http://www.bing.com/search...
truth

Canning Vale, Australia

#463212 Jul 18, 2013
invisible element=ion+cristal=what?

evil is evil
anybody can be evil

is that nice
no
why should be
but its exist

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 Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 1 hr Demon Finder 25
News Pope Francis: Islam's Friend, Christianity's Foe? Mon naman 1
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) May 20 3way4me 10,092
News Pope Francis meets with victims of child sexual... May 20 humor in everything 2
News Pope says he's willing to study women deacons, ... May 16 Redeemed 3
News John Paul II College of Davao (Dec '07) May 13 Michael 671
News How much hatred does God have? (Dec '08) May 9 Time again 56
More from around the web