Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 654141 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.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#475497 Sep 9, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
chance47 wrote:
The gap in the reasons cited about 'the flood' is that if there were a powerful God behind such an event then that same powerful God could have erased the evidence, restored the Earth, etc. In fact there is no contradiction IF the all powerful God is assumed to be true.
New Age wrtoe:
Well, since so many catastophes could have been stopped and weren't, I'll discount your theory to be valid.
Unless you have some evidence that supports your position. Do you?
Or is this not even your position, but wanted to express it, because you find merit to its substance?
<quoted text>
This discussion can round and round in so-called "Christians" mind over and over again, but like you stated, it leads them nowhere.
a. The argument that "God" has free will - is like every other argument about "God" - unproven and will always remain this way.
So-called "Christians" hate to be wrong and fearful that they are - all because of indoctrinations - which normally occur early in life.
IMO - the flood was regional and highly unlikely a global one.
If a global one - the last Ice Age was the cause.
If regional - Mt Aetna or the Baltic Sea both show very plausible signs that any flooding would have been regional only.
Thanks for responding.
I agree there was probably 'a' flood somewhere that is the basis for the tale is the bible. The authors take on the event was 'global'.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#475498 Sep 9, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
Pad,
It is unfortunate too so often see the Churches position on trusubstantiation being presented as something so clearly it was never said to be.
I have seen Orthodox and Protestants often misstating thier personal perceptions as Catholic belief. Sadly their are also Catholics who do not understand
If you wish to understand the Catholic position and argue against it then it is wise to know what exactly you are arguing against rather than mischaracterizing or forcing what you believe is taught.
The Eucharist is a mystery and canot be approached with carnal thinking. The author below I think brings some clarity to the matter. I can assure you that if you went to Orthodox/Catholic discussions things often become clearer. In Charity the discussions bear fruit and nothing like happens in here would be allowed. The use of the term consubstantiation though its not hard to find an Orthodox priest who will object.
http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Th...
Man-made texts trying to define, as you stated, "The Eucharist is a mystery" to continue a ruse and mislead others.

Way to go!!

Self.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#475499 Sep 9, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree there was probably 'a' flood somewhere that is the basis for the tale is the bible. The authors take on the event was 'global'.
I wonder why the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the Americas) never show a global flood occurring in their communities?

Another point to make for the last Ice Age - and the rising oceans, you will noticed that there are now, many "sunken cities" near coastlines that are beginning to be found.

Japan
India
Cuba
....just to name a few recent discoveries.

With ocean levels continuing to rise, other modern sites may also begin to disappear.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#475500 Sep 9, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder why the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the Americas) never show a global flood occurring in their communities?
...
Not sure I follow you; Katrina flooding was all over TV and so was the 2008 flooding in the midwest. Are you referring to different flooding?

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#475501 Sep 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your Church dates back to the 4th century"
No it doesn't Pad. It dates back to 33 AD. At no time did the Church that Christ started; and the hierarchy of Bishops, Priests and Deacons the Apostles established, suddenly become a different group....or an abolished group.
I believe what you're trying to imply, is that Constantine changed it to a different Church in 313 AD. There is absolutely no proof of this and I don't know why fundamentals continue to imply it. The Church changed Constantine, not the other way around. Really, you believe a conspiracy fantasy scenario that conveniently fits on paper.. But only if you ignore Church teaching in the first 4 centuries and pretend Constantine introduced those things.
Roman has nothin to do with the title of a Church. Its Catholic. SO if you choose to use the title out of context, your guilty of misleading people.
No it doesn't....1054 ring a bell..and your quilty of lieing to the people...
Clay

Detroit, MI

#475502 Sep 9, 2013
Seraphima wrote:
<quoted text>No it doesn't....1054 ring a bell..and your quilty of lieing to the people...
Ah yeah, the 1054 date, when 'we split' from you. I get that you say you are the true church. Fine, it doesn't bother me at all. I respect the Orthodox faith.
You should consider the next thousand yrs after the split though, the Orthodox went into relative obscurity. Even today, most of the world doesn't know you, and certainly doesn't understand what you guys believe to be truth. I've conversed with 4 different Orthodox on this forum and I am still confused.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#475503 Sep 9, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
Pad,
It is unfortunate too so often see the Churches position on trusubstantiation being presented as something so clearly it was never said to be.
I have seen Orthodox and Protestants often misstating thier personal perceptions as Catholic belief. Sadly their are also Catholics who do not understand
If you wish to understand the Catholic position and argue against it then it is wise to know what exactly you are arguing against rather than mischaracterizing or forcing what you believe is taught.
The Eucharist is a mystery and canot be approached with carnal thinking. The author below I think brings some clarity to the matter. I can assure you that if you went to Orthodox/Catholic discussions things often become clearer. In Charity the discussions bear fruit and nothing like happens in here would be allowed. The use of the term consubstantiation though its not hard to find an Orthodox priest who will object.
http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Th...
==========

PART ONE
Your original question to which I responded was do the Orthodox use a monstrance. My reply was a fairly long past. You did not ask for a thesis on the Eucharist and Aristotle and Plato, Neither did I explain in detail the Catholic position re what was meant by a change in substance.

Thomas Aquinas,(Thomism) though he did not invent the term transubstantiation, is the one who greatly expounded on the virtues of this term and used Aristotelian philosophy to explain the changes that happen to the bread and wine and the changes that do not happen.

For centuries leading up to Aquinas, the Church used Platonism as its primary mode of explaining Church teachings philosophically. While Platonism does not reject the Incarnation, it is a philosophy that is more akin to explaining the visible world as an illusion.

Aristotelian philosophy is different from Platoism. It says the visible world is real. In this case, transubstantiation is seen as a fulfillment of the Incarnation on an even more tangible level.

In the late eleventh century, there were several Eucharistic controversies in the Western Church.

Among the most famous, though, was Berengar of Tours’ formulation that the bread and wine at Mass did not become the Body and Blood of Christ, but was merely a “symbolic” change.

This was indicative of the shift from a more symbolic (in the truest sense of the word) philosophy of religious teachings to the need for a more academic and logical explanation.

In the mid-thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas began to speak of the Eucharist using, not Platonic philosophy, as was the norm, but Aristotelian philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas (Thomism) used Aristotle’s ideas of accidents and substances.

Aquinas (drawing from Aristotle) claimed that through the words of Consecration pronounced by a priest with his proper intention, and bread and wine, the bread and wine were truly transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Accident (what exists in and is said of another) physical appearances of bread and wine

Substance (what does not exist in another & not said of another). the invisible essence of the bread and wine

The accidents, the appearance of bread and wine remained, while
the substance of the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood.

Even though the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 used language similar to transubstantiation, it was Aquinas who opened up a new way of looking at the Eucharist that was never done before in the history of the Eucharist.

CONTINUED

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#475504 Sep 9, 2013
PART 2
While the Churches in the East do hold that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, they never felt the need to explain it in depth because of the mysterious nature of their religious ethos.

Platoism in the East and Aristotelian philosophy in the West.

A philosophical shift played a role in the appearance of these new controversies over the real presence. The early Church Fathers had been largely Platonic in their philosophical
perspective. Following in the tradition initiated by Plato they believed that true knowledge came as intuition perceived a world of abstract forms. The truly real was understood to exist
in a "world of ideas." What appeared to be real materiality was a mere shadow of reality.

From this perspective, reality was achieved by the mind's grasp of the essence of things,rather than through perception by the senses.

Applying this abstract approach to the Eucharist, the real presence of the Lord was identified with the essence of eucharist. What was perceived by the senses-the appearance of
bread and wine-had little bearing on the reality of the eucharist.
This Platonic approach freed the believer from what appeared to be, and allowed for concentration on the true reality of the eucharist '
What was real-the essence-had been changed into the body and blood of Christ. It was Christ who transformed the bread and wine, and through contact with this Christ, the members of the community were transformed.

Plato divides reality into two: On the one hand we have ontos, IDEA or IDEAL. This is ultimate reality, permanent, eternal, spiritual. On the other hand, there’s phenomena, which is a manifestation of the ideal. Phenomena are appearances -- things as they seem to us -- and are associated with matter, time, and space.

The physical world, because it is fleeting and changing, is less real, less true than the realm of universals. Universals do not change – that is, they are eternal inasmuch as they do not change. The physical world is in constant flux, and our perception of things in them is subjective and relative. A given object’s realism ("accidents" is based on how closely it adheres to the abstract idea of that object ("form") and how much it is affected by time and change.

Plato’s use of the forms stipulates that man is a part of the earth, but merely participates in a diluted and therefore imperfect manifestation of the really real.

The East views the earth as a reflection of the real world of God, heaven. The liturgy in the East is more of a tearing apart of the veil between heaven and earth so that the priest can mediate the reality of heaven from God to the people, taking the people’s prayers to God.

Aristotle Essence and Matter
What Plato called idea or ideal, Aristotle called essence, and its opposite, he referred to as matter. Aristotle maintains that a particular substance is a combination of both matter and form. He distinguishes the MATTER of the substance as the substratum, or the stuff of which it is composed. Aristotle said the ESSENCES were "in the things themselves."For example, the matter of a house is the bricks, stones, timbers etc., or whatever constitutes the potential house, while the form of the substance is the actual house, namely 'covering for bodies and chattels' or any other differentia (see also predicables) that let us define something as a house
Aristotle's philosophy places more emphasis on the visible and real manifestation of Divine realities in our reality.

CONTINUED

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#475505 Sep 9, 2013
PART 3
In the West, though this is not an alien concept, sees the liturgy more of a participation in Divine realities manifested through visible signs and symbols. This represents the two different strands of philosophy in the Church.

Transubstantiation can be defended through use of Aquinas’ use of Aristotelian philosophy God can manifest Himself through the goodness of His creation. Even though the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ substantially, accidently the bread and wine remain to speak to the anthropological need to communicating with the Creator through means man is able to comprehend. It is then that transubstantiation is defendable because it elevates visible creation to the heights of God.

If you are going to assume a Thomist philosophy, then Transubstantion is a perfectly valid explanation of the Eucharist

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#475506 Sep 9, 2013
Disclaimer: The above posts were from a nonmainstream,nontrue Orthodox, nontrue Platoist, nontrue Aristotlian

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#475507 Sep 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yeah, the 1054 date, when 'we split' from you. I get that you say you are the true church. Fine, it doesn't bother me at all. I respect the Orthodox faith.
You should consider the next thousand yrs after the split though, the Orthodox went into relative obscurity. Even today, most of the world doesn't know you, and certainly doesn't understand what you guys believe to be truth. I've convers is simpled with 4 different Orthodox on this forum and I am still confused.
Then stick to what is simple for you.The Orthodox is concerns is to preserve the Faith not in numbers or changing to please others.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#475508 Sep 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yeah, the 1054 date, when 'we split' from you. I get that you say you are the true church. Fine, it doesn't bother me at all. I respect the Orthodox faith.
You should consider the next thousand yrs after the split though, the Orthodox went into relative obscurity. Even today, most of the world doesn't know you, and certainly doesn't understand what you guys believe to be truth. I've conversed with 4 different Orthodox on this forum and I am still confused.
This would be a good start Clay. http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthod...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#475509 Sep 9, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yeah, the 1054 date, when 'we split' from you. I get that you say you are the true church. Fine, it doesn't bother me at all. I respect the Orthodox faith.
You should consider the next thousand yrs after the split though, the Orthodox went into relative obscurity. Even today, most of the world doesn't know you, and certainly doesn't understand what you guys believe to be truth. I've conversed with 4 different Orthodox on this forum and I am still confused.
==========
OK, so you are "confused" by Orthodoxy but understand this:
The Division of Dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith.
(1) GENERAL OR SPECIAL (2) MATERIAL OR FORMAL (3) PURE OR MIXED (4) SYMBOLIC OR NON-SYMBOLIC;
==========
Dogmas also can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.
SPECIAL DOGMAS are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special Dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all. They are not Revealed Truths transmitted from the Apostles They are not Defined or Proposed by the Church for the Acceptance of the Faithful Generally.
==========
MATERIAL DOGMAS (or Divine Dogmas, or Dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as Revealed; and they are called Formal Dogmas (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered Both as Revealed and Defined.
PURE DOGMAS ( can be known only from Revelation), as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.;
==========
The infallibility of the Magisterium extends also to teachings which are deduced from such truths (FIDES ECCLESIASTICA). These Church teachings or Catholic truths (VERITATES CATHOLICAE) are not a part of divine revelation, yet are intimately related to it. The rejection of these "secondary" teachings is not heretical, but involves the impairment of full communion with the Catholic Church.[23]
FIDES ECCLESIASTICA
There are three categories of these "SECONDARY" TEACHINGS (FIDES ECCLESIASTICA):
•THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS:(conclusiones theologicae) religious truths, deduced from divine revelation and reason.
•DOGMATIC FACTS (facta dogmatica) historical facts, not part of revelation but clearly related to it. For example the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and the Petrine office
•PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTHS, such as existence of the soul, "freedom of will", philosophical definitions used in dogmas such as transubstantiation
==========
1.De fide Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered infallible revelation
2.Fides ecclesiastica Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium, considered infallible revelation
3.Sententia fidei proxima Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4.Sententia certa Church teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation
5.Sententia communis Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research
6.Sententia probabilis Teachings with low degree of certainty
7.Opinio tolerata Opinions tolerated within the Catholic Church, such as pious legends
==========
ENCYCLICALS
Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis, that PAPAL ENCYCLICALS, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:

RAN OUT OF ROOM

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#475510 Sep 9, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Man-made texts trying to define, as you stated, sufficient clarity that they can then discover God through living and relationship "The Eucharist is a mystery" to continue a ruse and mislead others.
Way to go!!
Self.
New Age Though I know of my church's position of consubstantiality,the church also says they used that concept reluctantly and did not go into specifics of how the change occurs.My own judgment is its best not to speculate about things that surpass our minds knowledge and processes and then try to capture it in language which is also limited. The church always gets into trouble when it assumes it can explain the mind and workings of God.I am of the position that we should explain enough to give people some coordinates and then then let them discover God's Truths through relationship with him and through living the Truths

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

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

#475511 Sep 9, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW GiF - the main focal point for your supposed "scriptures" should be "God".
Looks like you failed at that too.
Your focal point is neither GOD nor JESUS...

IT IS SELF...

THAT IS ALL THAT YOU ATTEMPT TO GLORIFY...

YOU ALWAYS PRESENT YOUR SELF AS YOUR SAVIOR...

YOU ARE IN FOR A RUDE AWAKENING ...WHEN YOU FACE GOD...

A SELF MADE PERSON..CAN ALWAYS BE IDENTIFIED BY THE SIZE OF THEIR MOUTH.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#475513 Sep 9, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
He was catholic - which supercedes your version of Catholic.
Accept the truth Dan, the history is secure.
But alas, trying to protect man's virtues is how it always has been, huh?
The arrogance of Christianity.
*sighs*
The ignorance of Gnosticism.

Diocletian wasn't a Christian.

He persecuted Christians.
hojo

Saint Paul, MN

#475514 Sep 9, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Love it!!!! Stay on course!!!! Continue calling your pope a liar!!!
The NABre pope approved Catlick bible says: Church: this word (Greek ekkl&#275;sia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Mt 18:17 (twice). Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
The largest denomination in the USA is the Catholic denomination...tain't what Christ built!!!!
It matters not "one iota" to ANY of us Catholics, as to WHAT you believe!! You, Ox, are a bible only "self-interpreting" ---- "island unto yourself"---with (ZERO) credibility in which (little or none) of your other contradicting 42,000+ Protestant "fundies" believe you EITHER. We, as Catholics know the biblical and historical TRUTH, that Jesus Christ initiated, established and formed ONE TRUE APOSTOLIC CHURCH and it was Catholic. You can believe ALL the Protestant lies and the fraudulent anti-catholic BS that you want!! IT IS ALL YOURS!!!!
marge

Leesburg, GA

#475515 Sep 9, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>New Age Though I know of my church's position of consubstantiality,the church also says they used that concept reluctantly and did not go into specifics of how the change occurs.My own judgment is its best not to speculate about things that surpass our minds knowledge and processes and then try to capture it in language which is also limited. The church always gets into trouble when it assumes it can explain the mind and workings of God.I am of the position that we should explain enough to give people some coordinates and then then let them discover God's Truths through relationship with him and through living the Truths
That sounds good Hermi but clearly Jesus was not giving His disciples literally His flesh and blood to consume.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#475516 Sep 9, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
It matters not "one iota" to ANY of us Catholics, as to WHAT you believe!! You, Ox, are a bible only "self-interpreting" ---- "island unto yourself"---with (ZERO) credibility in which (little or none) of your other contradicting 42,000+ Protestant "fundies" believe you EITHER. We, as Catholics know the biblical and historical TRUTH, that Jesus Christ initiated, established and formed ONE TRUE APOSTOLIC CHURCH and it was Catholic. You can believe ALL the Protestant lies and the fraudulent anti-catholic BS that you want!! IT IS ALL YOURS!!!!
Love it!!!! Stay on course!!!! Continue calling your pope a liar!!!

The NABre pope approved Catlick bible says: Church: this word (Greek ekklsia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Mt 18:17 (twice). Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

The largest denomination in the USA is the Catholic denomination...tain't what Christ built!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#475517 Sep 9, 2013
Rosesz
You never answered my question: Do you have any idea what Christ said must, absolutely, without any doubt whatever, no exceptions, happen for you to enter into Heaven?????

You, evidently, don't know, or you would have replied.

You call God, Father. No one can claim that status as a natural birthright...some are children of the father of all lies...the devil..

Share with us the events that occurred in your life that culminated in you becoming one of His daughters...

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) Sat Truthmakeyafreebaby 10,208
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