Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 603865 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.

Liam

United States

#497706 Dec 6, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Just like with the Bible, you fanatics look at writings and decide whatever you desire to believe.
However, when you are forced to use reason and logic you run and hide.
The Bible fell from the sky... the Apostle forgot to explain it properly. You came along and set every thing straight.
Now go beat the other false prophet, Preston over the head with one of our scripture verses. lol

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497707 Dec 6, 2013
Imagine the nerve of popes that stole vast wealth that they bilked from others, including the Jews ... making statements such as the following.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>

POPE CLEMENT VIII:“All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty,
Liam

United States

#497708 Dec 6, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>further PROOF from the Bible that His Body was not broken.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was [bruised] for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
bruised means exactly that, and it doesn't mean that His body was broken. as Christians, we need not to accept the false teachings of Catholicism, NOR go along with them
He took the bread and broke it because that's how share you dummy. What are we supposed do, pass around a gigantic piece of bread until all the bites consume it?

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497709 Dec 6, 2013
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like with the Bible, you fanatics look at writings and decide whatever you desire to believe.
However, when you are forced to use reason and logic you run and hide.
The Bible fell from the sky... the Apostle forgot to explain it properly. You came along and set every thing straight.
Now go beat the other false prophet, Preston over the head with one of our scripture verses. lol
You DO realize that if Jesus lived, he was (when the Catholics got done with his image) an anti-Semite ... don't you?

ONLY anti-Semites would go to work for the popes in Catholic confessionals, forgiving sins of the very Catholics that were murdering the Jews.
Anthony MN

Champlin, MN

#497710 Dec 6, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
You worship a cracker and true Christians worship Jesus Christ. Sadly, you believe Jesus is a cracker. Go figure.
Just a few quotes from those whom you deem worthy to call Christians writing BEFORE Constantine and his "corrupting" the Church. Lots more where this came from.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

Hey OldJG, have you com up with any evangelical fundamentalist writings from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century yet? lol.
Liam

United States

#497711 Dec 6, 2013
[QUOTE who=drd"OldJG"]<q uoted text>
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.
[/QUOTE]
I'll be completely honest, old g, I read that whole article and I can't find a problem with it... other than when the author puts in his personal comments. Nothing in it says we are wrong. The author simply sees a word and runs off with it. But it doesn't add up to when compared to everything else.

Also, I didn't read about the Eucharist and then decide to believe. I partook in it. That's why the Lord established such a brilliant method and gift. We don't need to learn Greek to comprehend it. You simply eat it.
Liam

United States

#497712 Dec 6, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a few quotes from those whom you deem worthy to call Christians writing BEFORE Constantine and his "corrupting" the Church. Lots more where this came from.
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
Hey OldJG, have you com up with any evangelical fundamentalist writings from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century yet? lol.
The link he provided supposedly showing the Church fathers contradicting the Eucharist isn't anything alarming. They aren't contradicting it. Him and that author see it because they have a pre determined conclusion and need to see it, that's all.
Stay inside today. It sucks outside!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#497713 Dec 6, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
Why do I, an SBC member fully embrace the Truthin the Catholic NABre Bible, and Catholics do not!!!!!
Is it because you are sillier than they are to do so?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#497714 Dec 6, 2013
marge wrote:
<quoted text>
The beauty of Scripture is the Truth it says all by itself, you will never be able to refute what it says with words from man, and only those born-anew through that Word which is Jesus can decipher it and say yeah to it.
Uhm....marge.....the Bible was written by men.

You just contradicted yourself.

DOH!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#497715 Dec 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
To please your SELF, all people of the world will have to align their beliefs to the beliefs of YOUR SELF.
No they don't - self-stimulation is a personal act.

:o)
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You go on and on and on about SELF ... meaning YOU.
No. I go on and on about the Self - which is my term for the consciousness/being/free will we each use every moment of our lives.

You've placed it all upon me, which is not true in one slightest bit.
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Good. We agree on one thing - a personal choice to think on their own.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#497716 Dec 6, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Trust in your self worth.
Flip-flop. Flip-flop.

Why do you promote the Self, yet refuse to accept it is as something you have?

Yep - like I said - you are still "Christian" - refuting the truth, just to believe the lies.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#497717 Dec 6, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>

You do not believe in a Creator, correct? If so, how did you get here? Will you please explain and thanks again. OldJG.
Of all the questions you have asked of others - this one, has really been the only one that contains any hint that you want to learn.

Just remember the dismay you see is only a veil that conceals the astonishment.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497718 Dec 6, 2013
It's not by chance that preachers of religion are ALWAYS certain that the "thoughts" of the gods are aligned to their own thoughts.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497719 Dec 6, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't - self-stimulation is a personal act.
No kidding???

To believe you speak for a god is VERY self-stimulating.

Silly ... but still very self-stimulating.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497720 Dec 6, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Flip-flop. Flip-flop.
Why do you promote the Self, yet refuse to accept it is as something you have?
Yep - like I said - you are still "Christian" - refuting the truth, just to believe the lies.
Because my opinion is all I have TO promote, and if you don't approve of my opinion, then you don't approve of MY self.

I suggest you are convinced that your ability to LEAD others to "spiritual knowledge" is your SELF's duty.
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#497721 Dec 6, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>further PROOF from the Bible that His Body was not broken.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was [bruised] for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
bruised means exactly that, and it doesn't mean that His body was broken. as Christians, we need not to accept the false teachings of Catholicism, NOR go along with them
Preston

Do you think Jesus was brokenhearted and spirit crushed, while on the cross?

(Refer to the his words on the cross, "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me...."

If you cannot imagine that Jesus was broken, while on the cross, then you must think very much differently than I do....

Peace

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497722 Dec 6, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it align to thoughts of SELF???

If it does then rather than continually bickering about meanings ... Catholics and Protestants and Gnostics best get together and agree with each other.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497723 Dec 6, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think Jesus was brokenhearted and spirit crushed, while on the cross?
He was a blathering idiot, as he cried out in frustration ... "I thought I was supposed to preach Judaism forever, and here I am on the verge of becoming a supporter of the Catholic religion.

I am now an anti-Semitist. I simply can't live with myself any more, as my conscience is shot to hell."

:)

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497724 Dec 6, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cannot imagine that Jesus was broken, while on the cross, then you must think very much differently than I do....
For converting to Catholicism and leading people away from Judaism, Jesus "should" have been broken over the head with a sledge hammer by his father Jehovah.

:)

Golly gee ... theology is FUN to ridicule.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#497725 Dec 6, 2013
I suggest that Catholics should ask the question ... "Where did Peter, the supposed first Jewish pope fit into this picture?"
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >

A History of Religious Ideas, by Mircea Eliade.

At the first ecumenical councils, only certain representatives of the “Pope” participated. That title was adopted by Siricius (384—99), who thus proclaimed himself the “father” and not the “brother” of the other bishops.

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 eases church rule on abortion forgiveness 6 hr Catholic24 46
News Archbishop assails Trump over birthright citize... 7 hr Redeemed 12
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 15 hr Sherie 9,687
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) Thu Mr_SKY 84,435
News Pope: Priests in Holy Year can absolve - sin of... Sep 2 Catholic24 8
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Aug 30 Paul Porter1 421
News Ahead of pope's visit to US, some friction over... Aug 26 Belle Sexton 3
More from around the web