Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 654008 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.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#466374 Jul 27, 2013
Free Grace 7 wrote:
James(not Peter) was given Chief rule at Jerusalem Council(Acts 15)
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).
No throne. No crown/tiara..no ring to kiss ..

How did they ever spread GODS word .
truth

Thornlie, Australia

#466375 Jul 27, 2013
everything will past my words not..Jesus Christ

light
they liked died but can't
better not to be born

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466376 Jul 27, 2013
Robert Eno gives the following explanation:

There is no question then that Ambrose honored the Roman see, but there are other texts which seem to establish a certain distance and independence as well. He commented, for example, that Peter’s primacy was a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not rank...Finally, one further text should be mentioned in connection with Ambrose since it is a text which like Roma locuta est has become something of a shibboleth or slogan. This is the brief phrase from his commentary on the fortieth Psalm: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church)...As Roger Gryson has shown, in his study on Ambrose and the priesthood, the context of such a statement has nothing to do with any treatise on ecclesiology. It is but one statement in a long chain of allegorical exegesis starting with the line from Ps. 41:9:‘Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted...has lifted his heel against me.’ This is not to deny the fairly common association of Peter as the symbol of the Church, the figura ecclesiae we have seen in Augustine. But it says little that is new and nothing at all about papal authority (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 83-84).

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#466377 Jul 27, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
TODAY IS A VERY SPECIAL DAY FOR MY WIFE AND I
WE HAVE NOW BEEN MARRIED 61 YEARS..
GOD HAS WATCHED OVER US AND AND OUR FAMILY
HE HAS BEEN FAITHFUL ...AND FOREVER WILL BE.
Congratulations And God bless you both !!!

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#466378 Jul 27, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope closer to six I think ..But I could be wrong ..
Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-h...

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#466379 Jul 27, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
How did they ever spread GODS word .
My guess is, religious gossip was spread by the first creators of religion. Since then it morphed into many shape-shifting changes by preachers full of their own interpretive stuffings, such as you.

You no doubt have conned your self into the idea that a god can't resist your sermons ... but others who also place high value on their own interpretations perceive that you are off in the ditch and will end up in hell for being a heretic.

It's all based on contradictory perceptions ... NOT absolute truth.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#466380 Jul 27, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations And God bless you both !!!
What if "god" believes they are heretics? Do you reckon he'll get cranky at you for ordering him to bless evil sinners???

:)

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#466381 Jul 27, 2013
Free Grace 7 wrote:
Robert Eno gives the following explanation:
According to others who disagree ... Robert Eno will be labeled as a heretic who will burn in hell for eternity.

Isn't religion just a continual blast from an imaginary "furnace?"

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466382 Jul 27, 2013

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#466383 Jul 27, 2013
If any one of these religious right-fighting addicts hit the bulls eye of truth ... they wouldn't have a clue which one it was ... but they would no doubt all believe that it was their "SELVES."

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466384 Jul 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Well for one thing, that all the more remarkable that the East and West share 95% of the same faith; 100% of the same sacraments.
The East was started by the Apostles.(Andrew went to Greece) so to me, that's proof in the validity of the Mass, the Eucharist, infant Baptism, Confession, the Priesthood, and Apostolic succession.
It also is ironic that we both have never taught OSAS and Sola Scripture. That's because the Apostles didn't teach it.
But fast forward 1500 yrs and Christianity took a different turn altogether. Now its done a complete U-turn on teachings that came directly from the mouths of the Apostles.
You guys changed Baptism, reversed the Eucharist, undid the Sacrament of Confession, undid the Priesthood, undid any kind of hierarchal Church, added Sola Scripture and Sola fide.
I see a chaotic mess with private interpretations and the whole theory that Jesus Christ commanded a canon of Scripture to be the sole authority on His Ministry.
I do not see why you're bringing up Orthodox and Catholic?
Clay, there were various thoughts on a "host" of topics concerning the early church.
Question: Would you say, that all the churches in the Bible, were "catholic"? Yes or no

Also, my post was derailed into other topics, however, my post was about early Christianity, concerning Rome Authority.

Free Grace 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Catholic Cardinal and theologian Yves Congar stated:
"The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century."
Congar. Y.,(1982) Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty–Third), pp. 26–27
Who is Yves Congar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Congar
You see, the "East" NEVER seen Rome as Rome sees herself, even from early on Christianity.

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466385 Jul 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
According to others who disagree ... Robert Eno will be labeled as a heretic who will burn in hell for eternity.
Isn't religion just a continual blast from an imaginary "furnace?"
June, I don't care for your style of communication. Go talk to someone else. Thank you
LTM

Marathon, Canada

#466386 Jul 27, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
TODAY IS A VERY SPECIAL DAY FOR MY WIFE AND I
WE HAVE NOW BEEN MARRIED 61 YEARS..
GOD HAS WATCHED OVER US AND AND OUR FAMILY
HE HAS BEEN FAITHFUL ...AND FOREVER WILL BE.
God Bless you both, Happy Anniversary Confrinting and KayMarie.

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466387 Jul 27, 2013
Transubstantiation:



“…we distinguish three views: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen…The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies…With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, whereby they become vehicles and organs of the life of Christ, although by no means necessarily changed into another substance…The symbolical view, though on a realistic basis, is represented first by Eusebius, who calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood, and takes the flesh and blood of Christ in the sixth chapter of John to mean the words of Christ, which are spirit and life, the true food of the soul, to believers…But it is striking that even Athanasius,“the father of orthodoxy,” recognized only a spiritual participation, a self-communication of the nourishing divine virtue of the Logos, in the symbols of the bread and wine, and incidentally evinces a doctrine of the Eucharist wholly foreign to the Catholic, and very like the older Alexandrian or Origenistic, and the Calvinistic, though by no means identical with the latter…As to the adoration of the consecrated elements: This follows with logical necessity from the doctrine of transubstantiation, and is the sure touchstone of it. No trace of such adoration appears, however, in the ancient liturgies, and the whole patristic literature yields only four passages from which this practice can be inferred; plainly showing that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet fixed in the consciousness of the church.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, ch.7, part 95

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466388 Jul 27, 2013
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by SYMBOLS, when He said:“Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by METAPHOR the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,-of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle...Thus in many ways the Word is FIGURATIVELY DESCRIBED, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not FIGURATIVELY represented as wine?“Who washes,” it is said,“His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”
-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52....


Symbols, metaphor, figuratively

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466389 Jul 27, 2013
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’”
-Origen, Commentary on Matthew, On Matthew 11:14


...."typical and symbolic body."

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466390 Jul 27, 2013

“For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.”
-Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-30....


...."figure of bread,...." / "figuratively turned into..."

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466391 Jul 27, 2013
"The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

Who is Everett Ferguson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Ferguson

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466392 Jul 27, 2013
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies -in reality, not in appearance- are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466393 Jul 27, 2013
The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian:... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs.(Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

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) 8 hr I recently left 10,207
News Pope Francis wades into transgender debate, lam... Wed South Knox Hombre 2
News Pope Francis' Remarks Disappoint Gay and Transg... Aug 4 Leon 2
News The Pope s War Aug 2 The Proclaimer 1
News Franklin Graham rebuts pope on Islam: - This is... Aug 1 Bob 1
News Pope Francis: 'Trump is not Christian' (Feb '16) Jul '16 make Donald Drump... 47
News Holding the left responsible (Sep '15) Jul '16 Crusader 4
More from around the web