Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 654713 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.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#466435 Jul 27, 2013
who="hojo"
Congratulations and Gods blessings to both of you! Disagreement between us does not, in any way, hinder the fact that we are all created by Almighty God HIMSELF, in HIS likeness and image to worship, praise, reverence and serve HIM Our Creator!!
**********

Thank you.

KayMarie and Gif

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466436 Jul 27, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take the TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, from the Early Church Fathers (who put the Canon of Scripture together), as it is CORRECTLY INTERPRETED in and through the teachings of the Catholic Church---who gave us the bible in 382,393, and 397AAD.
Please name them, per your statement here, without going into tangents. Thanks
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#466437 Jul 27, 2013
A ROMAN MIRACLE

A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Roman Catholic wed; to love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she's been bred. It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not comply,
And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.

So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood. The Mass, the host, were made but to deceive; and transubstantiation, too, she never would believe.

He went to see his priest and told him his sad tale. "My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail; For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion, To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion."

The priest went with the gentleman-he thought to gain a prize. He said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes." So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried, "The priest has come to dine with us!" “He's welcome," she replied.

And when, at last. the meal was over, the priest at once began, to teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man. The greatness of our Savior's love, which Christians can't deny, to give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.

"I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine, the sacramental miracle will stop your soul's decline." "I'll bake the bread," the lady said.“You may," he did reply, "And when you've seen this miracle, convinced you'll be, say I."

The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless. The lady asked,“Sir, is it changed?" The priest answered, "Yes. It's changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood; Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!"

So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare. The lady said unto the priest.“I WARN YOU TO TAKE CARE, FOR HALF AN OUNCE OF ARSENIC WAS MIXED RIGHT IN THE BATTER, BUT SINCE YOU HAVE ITS NATURE CHANGED IT CANNOT REALLY MATTER."

The priest was struck real dumb-he looked as pale as death. The bread and wine fell from his hands and he began to gasp for breath. "Bring me my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a cursed home!" The lady replied,“Begone it is you who shares the curse of Rome."

The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say. At length he spoke,“My dear," said he,“the priest has run away, to gulp such mummery and tripe, I'm not for sure, quite able; I'll go with you and we'll renounce this Roman Catholic fable."

– Author unknown

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#466438 Jul 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey now, I already clarified that Jonah wasn't a Character. I know you read clarification, there is no need to continue implying we believe it. Jonah was a real person, that's what I said.
The fact that Jesus merely 'mentions' Jonah and the Whale, does not mean it was a factual historical event. He was drawing the comparison of the Son of Man rising after three days and Jonah spending three days in the whale.
Also, Rose, do you believe Dinosaurs are 6,000 yrs old?
Yup

The whole earth erupted inside out in the flood .the fountains from within ...explains all these OLD LAYERS.

And if Jesus said Jonah was in the whales belly He was.

I believe the bible was written by men inspired by God .

Now I'd the gap theory a possibility ..I have no idea ..would also explain some do called discoveries.

But do I believe in a big bang .

Unless THat bang was GODS VOICE ..NO

NOR did we evolve from creatures in primornial OOZE .

No ape ancestors ..God breathed life into Adam ..yes

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#466439 Jul 27, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes!! by Creation!!!---- NOT----evolution!!!
Exactly ..Thanks ..tell Clay
Clay

Garden City, MI

#466440 Jul 27, 2013
Free Grace 7 wrote:
<quoted text>"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But He answered and said unto them, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: FOR AS Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; SO SHALL the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40)."
Question: Do you think "the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"?
I don't know. Do you think the Son of Man can be fully present in the bread and wine, yet... the physical matter remains bread and wine?

No you don't Do you. But because Jesus mentioned the Biblical story of Jonah and the Whale, that means he validated it as an historic factual event?

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466441 Jul 27, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take the TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, from the Early Church Fathers (who put the Canon of Scripture together), as it is CORRECTLY INTERPRETED in and through the teachings of the Catholic Church---who gave us the bible in 382,393, and 397AAD.
Was it Eastern and Western "early church fathers", or, just western, for your "local sees"? And, if it is both, I wonder how the Greek Orthodox have a different OT Canon listing :)

Hey now, don't forget the "epistle to the Laodecians" in the "Latin Vulgate" from the 6th-12 century :)
Clay

Garden City, MI

#466442 Jul 27, 2013
Free Grace 7 wrote:
<quoted text>I have personally debated Catholic priest that says VII developed, and that Scripture was errant(except in faith and morals).
I quoted Augustine, and I have quoted others. Case in point, a few discussions are going on now.
1. Transubstantiation
2. Papal Supremacy
3. Inerrancy vs errancy
I have sourced on every turn. You can claim what you will, but have done ZERO sourcing to validate your claims here. That should be a red flag for you.
I am on my phone and can't provide sources.
Also, your source was a 19th century Protestant theologian. Somebody no one has ever heard of.

Impress with your own thoughts and not a paragraph from a essay from 175 yrs ago.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#466443 Jul 27, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
I did answer you question about Netanyahu, I have to go back and look at the picture.
everyone has set a time table but we must remember God has His own and that is the one that matters.
Yes I think it might be possible Netanyahu will give the temple mount to the Vatican.
But remember Israel belongs to God. Jerusalem is the city of our Great King Jesus.
I just can't see it from him ..especially since the Vatican has been pro Palestinisn..And the Israeli religious want to rebuild the temple ...
Which will happen ..I don't get it at all

As you say the timetable is God's...But it is scary .

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466444 Jul 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I am on my phone and can't provide sources.
Also, your source was a 19th century Protestant theologian. Somebody no one has ever heard of.
Impress with your own thoughts and not a paragraph from a essay from 175 yrs ago.
I quoted noted Everett Ferguson too, but who's counting?:)

Will this suffice, since you have not answered to it...yet?

In the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the “sacrifice of the mass,” it says this:“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…”

Ummmm You were saying.....?
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#466445 Jul 27, 2013
WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? WHO IS THE PROPER CANDIDATE?

Only a saved person should be baptized. That means one who has believed on Jesus Christ and by faith has received Him as their personal Savior.

Acts 8:26-39, the Eunuch asked to be baptized. When the Eunuch desired to be baptized Philip said to him, "If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest." The eunuch confessed he did believe and was then baptized. Note that in V38, they left the chariot and went down into the water and after the Eunuch was baptized by immersion they came up out of the water. Clearly this is baptism by immersion.(More will be said on that a little further)

If a lost person is baptized then it is a picture of a lie. If a lost person who has not believed in Jesus Christ and is baptized the symbolism is saying he is confessing he believes in Jesus Christ as his Savior when in fact he does not. No one should be baptized who does not have a clear testimony of believing in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.

The Biblical mode of Baptism is to be immersed. Sprinkling, pouring, etc. are not biblical modes of baptism. These practices do not picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Greek word is "baptizo" means to immerse and has no other meaning. When the Bible was being translated the translators were told to translate the word "baptizo "in a neutral way so as not to offend the Roman Catholics who sprinkled or the New Testament churches that immersed. So the translators compromised and transliterated the word baptizo into new English word "baptism." However, the Greek text is emphatic that the word means to immerse or dip into the water. Sprinkling IS NOT BAPTISM. God is very clear on this.

Any other mode of baptism makes light of the death and resurrection of Christ. Those that practice these false methods of baptism have not obeyed the first commandment of their professed Lord. God choose the method of baptism to be a picture of the Gospel the person who is being baptized is identifying himself with Christ.

Baptism is to be done in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Matt. 28:19-20. In this passage, called the "Great Commission" Jesus commanded that believers were to go into the world and preach the Gospel and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Both the evangelism of the world and baptism were to be done in the name of the Trinity. Biblical baptisms are those that are done by true Bible believing assemblies that follow the New Testament as its sole rule and authority for its faith and practice. God has not given any church or individual the right to change what He put in place and instructed.

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466446 Jul 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. Do you think the Son of Man can be fully present in the bread and wine, yet... the physical matter remains bread and wine?
No you don't Do you. But because Jesus mentioned the Biblical story of Jonah and the Whale, that means he validated it as an historic factual event?
There is plenty of exegetical ground, to discredit transubstantiation. For starters, it would violate Levitical law (See Leviticus 17), yet, Jesus came to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17), which would be impossible right, if Jesus violated the Levitical law? Unless you can prove, and narrow it down to the Mosaic, this would create a big problem for your doctrine, would it not?
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#466447 Jul 27, 2013
How many popes have visited Israel? How many have visited Jerusalem?

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466448 Jul 27, 2013
Old JG:

I like Acts 10:47 :)

http://biblehub.com/acts/10-47.htm

The Holy Spirit was already received, before the water baptism :)
Clay

Garden City, MI

#466449 Jul 27, 2013
Free Grace 7 wrote:
<quoted text>There is plenty of exegetical ground, to discredit transubstantiation. For starters, it would violate Levitical law (See Leviticus 17), yet, Jesus came to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17), which would be impossible right, if Jesus violated the Levitical law? Unless you can prove, and narrow it down to the Mosaic, this would create a big problem for your doctrine, would it not?
What authority are you to determine such a thing?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#466450 Jul 27, 2013
StarC wrote:
Catholic and Protestant, over 1 million come to hear Pope Francis.
God Bless Pope Francis!
Pope Francis News In Rio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UzO5dPvlP3AXX
starc said:
Oxbow wrote:
What is the source of this statement?? "Holy Eucharist was practiced by ALL the Apostles and their disciples."

Luke 24:34-35
----------

Luke 24:34-35 has nothing to do with "Holy Eucharist"!!!!!

"When he broke bread", which that people used to do, and as the Jews still do today at the beginning of their meals and say a prayer......
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#466451 Jul 27, 2013
MARIAN HERESY
The popular Roman Catholic dogma of the "Immaculate Heart" has no basis in the Bible, but comes out of the realm of the occult. Here we have a magical source of power and protection.

The "Immaculate Heart" is depicted as a visible object glowing within the bosom of Jesus or Mary, and often held in Mary's hand. Devotion is directed to this mystical object in what becomes a subtle replacement of a personal relationship with Christ and devotion to Him. A primary purpose of the apparition of Fatima was to encourage devotion to this so-called Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In fact, this is borne out by another related Roman Catholic dogma: the Immaculate Conception. That heresy was first popularized through the efforts of British monk Eadmer in the twelfth century and was at last declared a dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. It teaches that Mary was "from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin" and that she remained without sin during her life.

Such is the false and idolatrous "Blessed Virgin Mary" of Roman Catholicism - an insult both to God and to the Mary of the Bible. She is looked to for the very pardon of sins and salvation that Christ procured with His own blood, and which He freely dispenses by grace to all who believe in Him. In the end, the denial of Mary's place as a "sinner saved by grace" has the effect of deifying her.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#466452 Jul 27, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
I love the way that the wisdom of the Bible laughs at the 'wisdom' of men!
Especially the part about you steering the words in the bible to love you and make sure that the bible denies others the same love.

That bible is a REAL charm-bracelet for those of low mentality.

“Unadulterated Grace - Rom 11:6”

Since: Jul 13

Chicagoland

#466453 Jul 27, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
What authority are you to determine such a thing?
James 3:1/1 Jo 2:27

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#466454 Jul 27, 2013
Free Grace 7 wrote:
<quoted text>There is plenty of exegetical ground, to discredit transubstantiation. For starters, it would violate Levitical law (See Leviticus 17), yet, Jesus came to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17), which would be impossible right, if Jesus violated the Levitical law? Unless you can prove, and narrow it down to the Mosaic, this would create a big problem for your doctrine, would it not?
When Christ referred to His body as bread...He was speaking metaphorically...not in the literal sense...otherwise He would be teaching cannibalism....

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.

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) 13 hr StillNotSure 10,211
News Pope Francis wades into transgender debate, lam... Aug 24 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