Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 20 comments on the Jul 10, 2007, CBC News story 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.

Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#500657 Dec 17, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
You Roman Catholics are always attempting....
to assume conjecture into the word of God...
You refuse to accept the penalty of adding to...or deleting from the will of God..
you can dance all you please...but there will be a day when YOU WILL FACE THE MUSIC.
Jesus is the testator that lived out the will/covenant/and testament ...
he arose to become the executor...
you Roman Catholics attempt to change his living will...
you refuse to be born again.. IN OBEDIENCE TO THE WORDS OF JESUS
HE SAID
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
.SO SINCE YOU ARE NOT SONS,...
YOU HAVE NO INHERITANCE
..ALL YOU HAVE IS THE KINGDOM OF ROME ITALY...
ONLY SONS ARE HEIRS....
SONS ARE BORN INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD BY SPIRITUAL BIRTH...
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Are you saying that Catholics are not born of water and Spirit?
If you are, then how is one born of water and Spirit?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#500658 Dec 17, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
NUMBER ONE ..I NEVER said WHY I LEFT THE CHURCH EVER ..ever ...
'
The so-called "Church" you reference has never been defined completely, so more than likely, you are still part of the "Church".

So why did you leave Catholicism?
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#500659 Dec 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Read slower, the bible verses are posted.
Don't start.

You really don't want to go down this path.

Cite your sources.
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#500660 Dec 17, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I have read it in greek, and some in Hebrew. can you?LOL.
My wife as an 8th grader was one of the best spellers in the state of Ohio, but compared to me, she knows very little.
making a spelling error is miniscule compared to making a error in following the cult of Catholicism.
BTW< You never said one word about husker misspelling a word, that Makes you a hypocrite
Do you really mean this:
"compared to me,(my wife) knows very little."

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#500661 Dec 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
I suggest that all devout Christians are certain that Jesus sees "truth" the same way as does each devout believer.
It can't BE any other way. If they thought that Jesus disagreed with them, they would have to conclude that they were wrong. And that would mean that their religion let them down.
It's as simple as that.
Each and every Christian ... "Jesus lives, and he thinks exactly as I think."
Your agenda speaks volumes - "you must believe a certain way. Afterall I do, so you must."

Really June?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#500662 Dec 17, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't start.
You really don't want to go down this path.
Cite your sources.
It's simple to find, not necessary. What part do u disagree with?
Husker Du

Falls City, NE

#500663 Dec 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really mean this:
"compared to me,(my wife) knows very little."
Wow, makes me wonder ....

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#500664 Dec 17, 2013
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#500665 Dec 17, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
hi catholics! did anyone hear from 'mary' lately? let me guess; she said to keep praying them silly lil beads even tho Christ clearly told us not to......
Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus told people not to pray the Rosary?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#500666 Dec 17, 2013
Some will tell you that Peter is the rock on which Jesus laid the foundation for His church, while others will reject this claim. The Roman Catholics go so far as to say that Peter was more than just the rock; They suggest that Christ designated Peter as the first pope. Is this the truth?
Let's take a look at what the Bible actually teaches in Matthew 16. In verse 13, Jesus asks His disciples "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" They responded by saying that some people thought Christ was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets. "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (verses 15-18)
At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" or bedrock. Now we can see that there is an obvious difference! Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon: Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42). Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." (Matthew 7:24-25)
Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." We can't look to a mere human being as the foundation of the Christian church! "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Psalm 118:8). Like David said, "The Lord is my rock" (Psalm 18:2) "And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalm 18:31).
Peter was not "rock solid" at this point in time. If we read on in Matthew 16, just a few verses after Jesus spoke of the rock, we find Christ rebuking Peter for trying to hinder His ministry: "But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23) Later, it was Peter who denied three times that he even knew Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). So he obviously had some growing to do in his relationship with the Lord, and Jesus knew that (Luke 22:31-32).
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#500667 Dec 17, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Some quotes from prominent protestant historians,
"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."
"The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation,'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you'(1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....
"Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on."
"In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire.
"By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome."
"The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)."
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
"That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."
"ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document."
"[It is] quite certain that he [Peter] died there [Rome] a martyr's death in the persecution under Nero (about A.D. 65)."
Peter NEVER in Rome.

http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/pete...

Peter NEVER in Rome.

http://www.cogwriter.com/peter.htm

Not only was Peter NEVER in Rome, he is not buried in Rome. Read.....

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusale...

http://www.romancatholicism.co.uk/peternotrom...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#500668 Dec 17, 2013
Final part,,,

Now it is true that every believer of Jesus Christ is a stone in the great building of God, His church. Peter himself tells us that Jesus is the "cornerstone", and we are also stones resting on the foundation of Christ: "Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." (1 Peter 1:4-6)

Paul adds to this illustration: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22)

Peter was not the "rock" that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 16, but he was one of the many that would be among the body of believers throughout time. We are all "rocks" in God's church, but Jesus is the Rock spoken of in Isaiah 32:1-2 (NLT) "Look, a righteous king is coming! And honest princes will rule under him. 2 He will shelter Israel from the storm and the wind. He will refresh her as a river in the desert and as the cool shadow of a large rock in a hot and weary land." (See also Deuteronomy 32:18, Psalm 94:22, 1 Corinthians 10:4)
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#500669 Dec 17, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> The Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic k&#275;phás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that K&#275;phás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
Did Jesus built the Ark or did He have Noah build it?
Did Jesus teach the people the Law or did He have Moses do it?
Did Jesus build the temple, or did He have Solomon build it?
By whose direction and power were these things done?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#500670 Dec 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus told people not to pray the Rosary?
Where does it talk about a rosary?
marge

Ames, IA

#500671 Dec 17, 2013
"Wuerl is less scolding and has steadfastly opposed from-the-top bans on the sacraments for lawmakers whose political views diverge from church teaching."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/17...
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#500672 Dec 17, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
Protestant historian? Really? Wrong again AnthonyMN. Why lie ALL the time?
lol
What, protestants can't be historians?
Chuck

Dublin, OH

#500673 Dec 17, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus called him rock. Apparently He didn't get it either. Probably should have checked with you first...
LOL...says the guy who was saved without knowing Christ.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#500674 Dec 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>It's simple to find, not necessary. What part do u disagree with?
I find thieves disagreeable.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#500675 Dec 17, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
Right on. The real reason is, the romanists did NOT 'write the Bible or give it to us' as they so arrogantly lie in claiming.
One doesn't have to look very far to see how romanism goes AGAINST what the Bible teaches in the first place. As for their so-called 'holy see'-=-- that's nothing but a bunch of dingbats in fish-head hats!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#500676 Dec 17, 2013
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
Peter NEVER in Rome.
http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/pete...
Peter NEVER in Rome.
http://www.cogwriter.com/peter.htm
Not only was Peter NEVER in Rome, he is not buried in Rome. Read.....
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusale...
http://www.romancatholicism.co.uk/peternotrom...
Well said and true.

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) 35 min Married in 9,183
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 5 hr Patriot 84,073
News Ion Mihai Pacepa 46 minutes ago History often r... 12 hr Tom Jones 1
News Pope Francis to stop off in Cuba on way to Unit... Thu Sherlayne 6
News A most reluctant crusader Apr 20 Polaris 11
News Armenian Genocide: Turkey To Convert Hagia Sofi... Apr 20 SpaceBlues 6
News Turkey disappointed with Pope's Armenian 'genoc... Apr 18 Erkek Turk 19
More from around the web