Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 596419 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.

Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#497681 Dec 5, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
Do these names ring a bell?
These early church fathers contradict your contention regarding "transubstantiation" .
No they don't and you having an OCD disorder isn't going to change that. lol

For more see my article on Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria which details the more "symbolical" and "allegorical" language of these Fathers and demonstrates they did not deny the literal and realist understanding of the Eucharist. So even while using the terms "symbol" and "figure" and "type" in referring to the Eucharist at points the Church Fathers did not adopt the purely "symbolical" or "figurative" interpretation that Webster and the rest of the Evangelical critics hold. The Council of Trent even uses the word "symbol" when referring to the Eucharist, and there is no problem here. The error is to stop there and not affirm that the "symbol" is in a real sense what it symbolizes (the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood).

Webster includes a number of carefully selected citations from the Fathers (in appendix 8 on Real Presence we have excerpts from the Didache, Justin, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine; in appendix 9 on Sacrifice we have the Didache, Justin, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Augustine), and tries to force many of the Fathers into his "symbolical" and "figurative" views in his chapter on the Eucharist. What Webster seems to do is search through the Fathers for passages that contain the words "memorial" and "symbol" and "figure" while ignoring their most explicit passages on the Real Presence and sacrifice, and disregards the rest of what they wrote and believed. This is not proper "historiography" (to use one of his favorite terms). It is obvious that one should interpret the more obscure and symbolical phrases in light of the more explicit.

Again, for the full story see This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers

Webster also distorts the teaching of St. Augustine by suggesting "the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defense of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper was Augustine...These views of Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent" (page 120-121). To see how wrong Webster is go to St. Augustine on the Eucharist

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num34.htm

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#497682 Dec 5, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
from the article,
The doctrine also asserts that during the last supper where Jesus instituted the memorial of His passion, the bread, after being blessed by Jesus, became His literal glorified body. One major problem with this; Jesus was not yet glorified when he shared the Passover meal with His disciples. Proof of that is found explicitly in two places, John 7:39 and 17: 5. The doctrine makes no sense today, and it made no sense 2000 years ago, and the idea was unheard of in the early church.
Basically it was of interest in what they wrote ..it does not seem as set in concrete as what we've been told it was ..

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#497683 Dec 5, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
It probably is for short sighted, ignorant and rabid anti-catholics like yourself who goes about bellowing all kinds of nonsense and is quick to absorb the latest tabloid headline. Now I wouldnt expect you to actually read and try to absorb the other side of the story with any depth or intellectual capacity, nevertheless I will put it forth. If you spent half the time you do looking for any rubbish and posting it with your shallow understanding then actually reviewing their works as a whole then you might learn something and it will not bode well for the Protestant view.
For a short balanced treatment of the Fathers on the Eucharist, I would suggest the classic non-Catholic work Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly (chapter 8 for the ante-Nicene, and chapter 16 for the post-Nicene Fathers), which Webster does refer to in his endnotes, although Kelly contradicts Webster at a number of points. For an exhaustive study, the older two-volume work A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist by the Anglo-Catholic scholar Darwell Stone is available through inter-library loan. A third important work by a Jesuit scholar is titled Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (1960) by Francis Clark which shows in great detail the errors and misunderstandings of Protestants concerning the Eucharist in the sixteenth century and the consistency of the Catholic belief by the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
----------
For the views of the early Church Fathers before St. Augustine
This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers
For a study of the "symbolical" language and "allegorical" interpretations of
Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Origen and St. Clement of Alexandria
For a study and explanation of the complex view of
St. Augustine on the Eucharist
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num34.htm
Actually think I'm one of the leAST RABID ANTI anything on here ..I just have different questions,tHan other non CATHOlics because ..ON S ONE THINGS,..I know the RCC taught differently ..when I was a kid..
Not on the Eucharist .of course .

I don't Hate the Church at all .just don't o along with everything it says ..

A few things ..I think you all are really wrong on as,I've Said. Some of you more than others ..

Contrary to your post ..
I DID NOT POST THE,ARTICLE or go looking for it .I usually respond to what's,posted .....

Yes,I found it interesting ..in that it seems less set in stone ..as,I said .. maybe the thoughts,were conflicted back then ..as,it seems ..
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#497684 Dec 6, 2013
OldJG wrote:
What did the early church fathers say about "transubstantiation" ?
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evi...
Come on old gee. I know you were on here a couple months ago when concerned in Brazil tried to use those arguments. He was thoroughly debunked. You people are so quick to embrace deception it ain't even funny. Just like with the Bible, you see whatever you're trying to see. Only God knows your conscience I guess. I don't know If you truly believe what you say or just trying to look for a way to wash your hands.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#497685 Dec 6, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
from the article,
The doctrine also asserts that during the last supper where Jesus instituted the memorial of His passion, the bread, after being blessed by Jesus, became His literal glorified body. One major problem with this; Jesus was not yet glorified when he shared the Passover meal with His disciples. Proof of that is found explicitly in two places, John 7:39 and 17: 5. The doctrine makes no sense today, and it made no sense 2000 years ago, and the idea was unheard of in the early church.
I have been saying that for over 5 years. His body was NEVER broken(regardless of what kay says) therefore it is not his broken body that catholics eat.

that is just plain common sense.

and another thing, an opening in the body(wounds) are not indicative of a break in the body, tho it is a break in the SKIN
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#497686 Dec 6, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>clay, you know the same as I do, that many, if not all of his alleged words were proved to be false. so why quote some persons opinion especially since you mocked marge when she quoted just a verse and gave no opine of that verse.
Preston, scholars dispute the authenticity of many of the Books of the Bible. If Paul didn't write Hebrews like they contend, it poses a problem for you. Especially if that author was really Clement of Rome. Obviously we Catholics don't have a problem if Clement wrote it. He was our 3rd Pope.

And the Ignatius writings the Church says are authentic have never been proven otherwise. There were some that are suspect, but the Church doesn't consider those authentic anyway.
I swore you were taught this already, I'm curious as to why you completely ignored it.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#497687 Dec 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
On a,New,Earth ..Will there even be a Rome,..!!!
I'm not kidding ..all those treasures may be gone ..destroyed ...along with most man made everything !!!
Crystal Cathedral..Too ...every man made,icon turned to dust ...during the,tribulation or by Christ ..
No wonder they want land,in Jerusalem ..
There will not be a new earth, the earth as we know it will be utterly destroyed and the only place that will be is heaven. Revelation 21:1 “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.” New is not the same as the old.(physical)
•Revelation 21:2 “Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” The holy city, new Jerusalem, cannot be a physical one, because it’s coming from heaven. The new heaven and new earth must be a figurative expression for God’s dwelling place, heaven. Matthew 5:34 “But I say to you, do not swear at all neither by heaven, for it God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.” Revelation 21:24,27 “And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.”“But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” This describes where the righteous will dwell, including the faithful in the church.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497688 Dec 6, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
NO MORE SILLY THAN YOU...AND YOUR ATHEISTIC FOOLISHNESS...
Your use of scriptures does not do away with the fact that had Jesus lived, he would have been an anti-Semitist ... just the same as are you.

His "truthful" words would have been of the sentiment, "I was born a Jew and practiced Judaism most of my earthly life ... some say ALL of my earthly life. But then either on earth or in spirit form, I decided to start a new religion totally foreign to Judaism, as I now see that Judaism was all based on lies and that I had to correct all the lies previously taught to me as truth by the Jews. Apparently my father ... the God of the Jews, sent me to earth to confuse me, so that I could in turn confuse others."

Religion is BUNK!

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497689 Dec 6, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
Leaving 'religion' certainly hasn't made you to be good. You fume at everyone on here...and compete as much as anyone to 'be the best'.
Maybe it is because of your religion...atheism...
KayMarie
Why are YOU "fuming" at the Catholics?

You are see-through. I'm quite aware that if I sided with you and "fumed" against the Catholics as do you, you would praising me as being WISE.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497690 Dec 6, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't. Please stop making things up about me.
To please your SELF, all people of the world will have to align their beliefs to the beliefs of YOUR SELF.

You go on and on and on about SELF ... meaning YOU.

I simply want people to leave religion so they can stop fighting verbally and physically over who owns truth, when the theological teaching of owning truth is simply based on theological mythology.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497691 Dec 6, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
June
Haven't you noticed most history is written concerning war?
The object of religion is being selfless, not selfish. Religion has been hijacked by the same people that write history....
Most people in the world are in religion, so guess who is starting the wars?

Humans in religion might preach of selflessness, but religion itself is based on the most selfish intentions of "Bliss for me and hell for you."

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#497692 Dec 6, 2013
StarC wrote:
"The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official
teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any
doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes
to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to
mean the opposite of what they once meant.
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).
But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people.
He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations"
(Matt. 28:19–20).
For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles."
WRONG, The Catholic church is a man made church which came about from some of the members of the true church which is the Church of Christ. These few members enjoyed the attention and praise they were getting from the Roman dignitaries and for this these members decided to please them back by doing things that these Roman officials desired and that's when you have the development of the Catholic church . The Church of Christ which Jesus built Matthew 16;18 and the Church that Jesus said he would build was eventually built in the year 33 AD when the first souls that were saved were added to the church on the day of Pentecost. There is only one true church of the bible and that's the CoC and I urge all to go to the nearest Church of Christ and study, then get baptized and then you would know that your home will be.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497693 Dec 6, 2013
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans don't need religion to be inhuman.
Humans in religion ARE human. Believing self to be better than other humans was and is the building blocks OF religion.

Even the silly old man Gerald Gardner (father of Wicca) taught that the goddess loves everyone ... "but" ... she curses homosexuals.

Theologians in all religions simply taught who the gods loved and who the gods would reject. That is how theologians earned, and still earn their "keep."

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#497694 Dec 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people in the world are in religion, so guess who is starting the wars?
Humans in religion might preach of selflessness, but religion itself is based on the most selfish intentions of "Bliss for me and hell for you."
People start wars in the name of God but God never authorized any of these wars, so you simply got bad people who are not Christians to start with saying to the world that God authorized this, and he didn't. Evil people are the cause for wars, not God.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497695 Dec 6, 2013
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Than what will we believe? The evening news channel?
Trust in your self worth. Since I left religion, I am of the same nature as when I was in religion. I try to be fair to others as I feel better about my self when I am kind than I do if I am overly self-centered.

It's common sense that when you treat others in a fair and decent manner that your reputation follows you. Humans, for the most part have long memories. If you are a shyster, they will not forget that you scammed them. But if you are forthright and try to never deceive, they will see you for what they believe is YOUR worth TO them.

Religion in itself doesn't build a good character ... but it has lead far too people to be killing brutes in the guises of serving gods.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497696 Dec 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> People start wars in the name of God but God never authorized any of these wars,
Well, I don't believe that a creator exists, much less instructs human thought one way or the other.

I believe humans invoked images of gods into their psyches and are foolish enough to believe that the gods LOVE them and will reject others.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497697 Dec 6, 2013
I came to conclude that in order for me to stay under the spell of religion, I was going to have to also believe that the creator was vile for creating human animals AND non-human animals to suffer needless pain ... when the creator could have omitted suffering altogether.

I knew that if I could not respect what I was worshipping, I had to stop worshipping what I could NOT respect. Otherwise I would lose respect for my self.

And so I left all theological gibberish behind and freed my self entirely from all religion.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#497698 Dec 6, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Preston, scholars dispute the authenticity of many of the Books of the Bible. If Paul didn't write Hebrews like they contend, it poses a problem for you. Especially if that author was really Clement of Rome. Obviously we Catholics don't have a problem if Clement wrote it. He was our 3rd Pope.
And the Ignatius writings the Church says are authentic have never been proven otherwise. There were some that are suspect, but the Church doesn't consider those authentic anyway.
I swore you were taught this already, I'm curious as to why you completely ignored it.
O my goodness Dust Storm, Cly(also know as Liam?), Regina, StarC, Catholic Girl, Husker Du and AnthonyMN. What is going on here? The scholars you so eloquently quote have thrown you and your Roman theology under the bus.

The following information is taken from...

http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evi...

The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

The Roman Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

From Schaff’s introductory note to Clement of Alexandria – After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him,“For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skillful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

It is interesting how easily Roman Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it does not agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“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…”(Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

In plain English, the reason the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said,“Eat My body and drink My blood.”

Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#497699 Dec 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I don't believe that a creator exists, much less instructs human thought one way or the other.
I believe humans invoked images of gods into their psyches and are foolish enough to believe that the gods LOVE them and will reject others.
Here we go again. Thank you June VanDerMark. Your words are very helpful in conveying God's message. I especially enjoyed this from you, quote, "Well, I don't believe that a creator exists, much less instructs human thought one way or the other." End quote.

You do not believe in a Creator, correct? If so, how did you get here? Will you please explain and thanks again. OldJG.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497700 Dec 6, 2013
Many people believe that humans, because of scientific advancements have become more WISE than we were when men lived in caves.

An example of how we are simply bits and pieces of other people's thought is made plain in the supposed "brilliance" of Einstein. Had math not been discovered by earlier humans and developed to such a complicated extent, Einstein would have had no more on which to base his theories than would a man fresh from the cave.

Medical science is that same. Back a very short while ago, humans either lived or died, as the physicians were limited in their abilities to help patients TO survive.

But now their are specialists that specialize in most every part of the human body and they pool their knowledge together to save human lives.

I don't believe that humans are any wiser than we were when we lived in caves. We are simply bits and pieces of the thoughts of others.

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 Cuba's Havana Archbishop, Cardinal Jaime Ortega... 2 hr Don Donnatello Va... 3
News Ecuador, first stop on Pope tour, highlights en... 13 hr Mark 1
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Fri Married in 9,533
News James Inhofe to Pope Francis: Shut up with your... Jun 30 2all 42
News Milwaukee Art Museum's embrace of condom portra... Jun 29 The Anti- Islamist 1
News Pope's Leaked Encyclical on Climate Change Has ... Jun 26 Buybull Mullahs 6
News Global warming deniers unimpressed with pope's ... Jun 26 Earthling-1 118
More from around the web