Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 673120 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"

#504479 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Church who gathered, edited, and produced the Bible, couldn't be the 'church of the Bible'? Sigh.
Enough with your forced dumbness. There already is a Church of Christ. Your sect is unknown and can be loosely traced to the 19th century. Your not the "church of the Bible" because:
A) you don't have all the Bible. You are missing 7 Books and a couple chapters from Daniel.
B) The Bible wasn't compiled until the 4th century.
C) The Bible didn't become readily available until 1452 AD, when the Catholic Church printed it for the first time.
~~~
So the Church who gathered, edited, and produced the Bible, couldn't be the 'church of the Bible'? Sigh.
So now you claim to be God that produced the Bible...Your arrogance never ceases and you inflated ego never ends.
Your faith is your religious society will not lift you one iota from the earth when Jesus comes.
Your belief THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SAVES YOU FOR HELL...WILL FAIL
AND ONE DAY (to late) YOU WILL LEARN THE TRUTH THAT
(it is only) JESUS CHRIST....THAT SAVES....
and that all the bells and hoops that your cult requires are to no advantage.....Have fun
sliding on your slippery slope ...there is a sudden crash ahead....You are like the man that
jumped off a high building....when he passed the 50th floor ..
HE.. said
"SOOOOOOOOO.. FAAAAAAR SOOOOOOO GOOOOOOOD".

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#504480 Jan 6, 2014
Gods R Delusions but Mine wrote:
How screwed up is this?
The Bible was placed on the Catholic Church's "List of Forbidden Books" by the Council of Valencia in 1229.
Why?
Because the Bible is so full of contradictions, error, and nonsense, that the Church rightly felt that is wasn't exactly the "clear Word of God."
It needed to be translated (in effect) by the Church.
But that's not what the Bible itself says! Hello?
Crazy stuff, but in the Age of Knowledge, more and more people are thinking for themselves. Most Roman Catholics don't even attend weekly Mass any more.
Gods R Delusions

Peace

As I have written before, non-believers always don't understand the Bible, and believers can be led astray, reading it on their own understanding. The dilemma is that it is very difficult to teach someone how to be wise....Thinking for oneself has its drawbacks. Ask any conspiracy minded person....(Garbage in. Garbage out.)

I do not preach and teach and discuss with a non-believer, just present a point of view. I do not enlighten others. I leave that to them.

Peace

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504481 Jan 6, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look the word up. I'll give you a clue...it's origin is Latin.
Did you miss the part where I stated the meaning of spirit and soul "in the CONTEXT of Religion?

The discussion here is about religion ... and the words spirit and soul in religion refer to being attached to a creator.

I realize you believe you are god-like in the sense of being able to create your own reality, but you didn't create your self ... did YOU?

If you believe that energy is the reason you live, then maybe you believe that the energy always existed, as energy has no intent behind it, as does a supposed creator-theory. And if that "IS" what you believe, you just might be right ... but it is still ONLY your theory ... as I suggest that your intellect is no more advanced than any other intellect to know definitive answers to what I suggest still remains mysteries.

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504482 Jan 6, 2014
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>You might as well find another forum June.I've had dealings with that 'Seentheotherside' nut,and onced he gets on a thread its all childish bullcrap from then on.
I'm used to bull-crap Jumper. I peddle it right along with the best of the bull-crap-peddlers.

:)

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#504483 Jan 6, 2014
Gods R Delusions but Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
No sister, I ask them to live their faith in the manner Jesus taught over and over again in their very own Bible.
They honor their saints for doing exactly as Jesus taught.
But when it comes to walking the talk themselves, suddenly the poverty thing becomes metaphor.(Too bad no one told all the saints.)
They can't explain it, because you and I wouldn't understand. We're not spiritual enough.
Or maybe, deep inside, they too see the absurdities. Otherwise, why take a chance of having too much wealth, driving an expensive new car, or living in a spacious house?
They believe up to a certain point, but then they see the delusion.
Gods R Delusions

"They" do.

But your view is skewed, living in a consumerist based economy. But you are not alone. The question you might ask is when the rich have so much of the wealth, does the poor collapse the civilization? The slums around the world are growing.(Detroit in the U.S. is hidden by design.)
Christians follow Jesus. He did not say sell everything and go walk out into the wilderness. Even Paul worked for a living. It is difficult for me to explain that you don't have to sell everything and go sit on the sidewalk to a person of your viewpoint.(Although if Jesus asked someone to do so, one out of obedience should do so.)

Actually, what you need to focus on is chastity, poverty, and obedience. These are the three crucial vows one accepts in following Jesus. The ability to do so, is dependent on God's use of a person in particular circumstances....

Peace

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504484 Jan 6, 2014
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> Are you implying that any church you go to is ok?
It better be ok, because with all the approximate 38 to 40,000 different denominations in the Christian religion, all believing you are right with "GOD" ... you'd better hope that Jehovah is in good mood for your continual insistence that he lives in Christian "heaven."

Rumor has it that the Jewish god is very insulted because Christians (with the exception of the JWs) refuse to honor him with his real title. And also rumor has it that it also irks him when you claim that he lives in heaven or in paradise with the Muslims, as he is very definite in the claim that he exists in his original ethereal state of Olam Haba.

But then, you are wise enough to know that there might be no truth whatsoever to those rumors, as anybody can spread rumors for others to believe.

:)
truth

Perth, Australia

#504485 Jan 6, 2014
nobody care what you say
its zero your talk
bla bla bla
thats all

real Creator done long time ago

Real Creator exist
thanks for all creation for that

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504486 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Church who gathered, edited, and produced the Bible, couldn't be the 'church of the Bible'? Sigh.
It has to be the righteous bible, and to Protestants that would be the KJV.

:)
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

Investigating anti-Semitism

The KJV team was told in the first rule of their translation charter to follow the Bishops’ Bible where truth would permit, and they were free to seek out more accurate renderings when they saw a discrepancy. But with 6 translation companies, about 50 contributors, 3 separate work sites, almost 800,000 words, 6 years or so of notes, working in 8 languages, with a little Chaldean and Aramaic, and conducting all correspondence among themselves in Latin, spelling of words may seem to lose a little sense. The focus must have been on giving the meaning of words and on communication and style and tone. Spellings seem to aim at reflecting the erudition of the translators in transmitting the original text through transliteration.

http://unfailingword.com/2012/12/14/investiga...

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504487 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
The important thing is that people seek God with a sincere heart and worship Him.
What is important to you is NOT important to all others.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

Professor Peter Higgs: Atheist scientist admits he doesn't believe in 'god Particle'

The scientist behind the Higgs boson, Prof Peter Higgs, has urged people to stop calling it the God particle, because he's an atheist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504488 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Church who gathered, edited, and produced the Bible, couldn't be the 'church of the Bible'? Sigh.
Enough with your forced dumbness. There already is a Church of Christ. Your sect is unknown and can be loosely traced to the 19th century. Your not the "church of the Bible" because:
A) you don't have all the Bible. You are missing 7 Books and a couple chapters from Daniel.
B) The Bible wasn't compiled until the 4th century.
C) The Bible didn't become readily available until 1452 AD, when the Catholic Church printed it for the first time.
Sir you're so off base it's not even funny. Long before the American restoration movement, there were believers in England (and elsewhere, but I single out England for a reason) that can be found centuries before Stone and Campbell were born: http://www.tr aces-of-the-kingd... Hosea 4:6 -
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because thou hast rejected knowledge,
I will also reject thee...."
The books of the New Testament were written in the first century. They were widely circulated among the churches as individual books. There are more than five thousand manuscripts of these books. Some were made as early as the second century. No other book of ancient times has as many manuscripts still in existence . The New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
•326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
•315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
•270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
•185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
•165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
•160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
•135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
truth

Perth, Australia

#504489 Jan 6, 2014
Real Creator exist.
Thanks for everything!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504490 Jan 6, 2014
Final part, If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
•1. Why does it condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
•2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
•3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
•4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
•5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
•6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
•7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
•8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
•9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
•10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
•11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
•12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
•13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
•14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504491 Jan 6, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus avoided crowds, though they followed him....
According to the church-fathers ... the first Catholics were already an established group of believers when Jesus decided to join them in the river Jordon to be baptized as a Catholic by the supposed Catholic saint John the Baptist.

I suggest that you stop implying that "Jesus" started your religion and others followed, as that was not the picture painted by your church-fathers.
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#504492 Jan 6, 2014
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> Sir you're so off base it's not even funny. Long before the American restoration movement, there were believers in England (and elsewhere, but I single out England for a reason) that can be found centuries before Stone and Campbell were born: http://www.tr aces-of-the-kingd... Hosea 4:6 -
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because thou hast rejected knowledge,
I will also reject thee...."
The books of the New Testament were written in the first century. They were widely circulated among the churches as individual books. There are more than five thousand manuscripts of these books. Some were made as early as the second century. No other book of ancient times has as many manuscripts still in existence . The New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
•326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
•315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
•270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
•185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
•165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
•160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
•135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
So in the middle 2nd century, 22 of the 27 NT books were named?
Lol you just proved sola scripture was impossible. If it was the will of the Lord, he'd surely supply us with a list, and it wouldn't have took a hundred yrs for His truth to arrive. And why did you quote our Catholic Church fathers?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504493 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Church who gathered, edited, and produced the Bible, couldn't be the 'church of the Bible'? Sigh.
Enough with your forced dumbness. There already is a Church of Christ. Your sect is unknown and can be loosely traced to the 19th century. Your not the "church of the Bible" because:
A) you don't have all the Bible. You are missing 7 Books and a couple chapters from Daniel.
B) The Bible wasn't compiled until the 4th century.
C) The Bible didn't become readily available until 1452 AD, when the Catholic Church printed it for the first time.
I think you get the picture now, your Catholic church is a man made church teaching false doctrine, it's as simple as that. Sir read this and maybe you'll lget the truth of the Catholic church, http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504494 Jan 6, 2014
michael wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the whole story was fictional. There s no reportable history outside the bible that many of these events actually happened.
Born into a belief claiming to be the son of god, a belief that does not believe in sons of god.
....makes no common sense.
Those that wrote the bible were cunning enough to write some actual events of that era and weave the fictional parts of the stories in with the actual happenings. I suggest that Jesus and all those apostles and mother Mary and Peter the first pope, et cetera, was all part of the fictional myths.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504495 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the middle 2nd century, 22 of the 27 NT books were named?
Lol you just proved sola scripture was impossible. If it was the will of the Lord, he'd surely supply us with a list, and it wouldn't have took a hundred yrs for His truth to arrive. And why did you quote our Catholic Church fathers?
When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504496 Jan 6, 2014
michael wrote:
<quoted text>
My belief is that god will punish you for doing his job..........judging people.
......Better stop before its too late!
-----save yourself now!!
Words in religious books have always been used to in turn judge others. Sincere preachers in all right-fighting religions always did believe their sermons were HOLY ... and nothing has changed.

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504497 Jan 6, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods R Delusions
Peace
As I have written before, non-believers always don't understand the Bible, and believers can be led astray, reading it on their own understanding. The dilemma is that it is very difficult to teach someone how to be wise....Thinking for oneself has its drawbacks. Ask any conspiracy minded person....(Garbage in. Garbage out.)
I do not preach and teach and discuss with a non-believer, just present a point of view. I do not enlighten others. I leave that to them.
Peace
For not being a preacher ... why did you just preach about Jesus being followed???

Double-talker.

You are here to proselytize your Catholic religion as being based on truth. You are quite CERTAIN that you are WISE for being a Catholic.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504498 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the middle 2nd century, 22 of the 27 NT books were named?
Lol you just proved sola scripture was impossible. If it was the will of the Lord, he'd surely supply us with a list, and it wouldn't have took a hundred yrs for His truth to arrive. And why did you quote our Catholic Church fathers?
Your sect is unknown and can be loosely traced to the 19th century you said, so what do you have to say about the info I gave you about Churches of Christ in England and elsewhere centuries before Stone and Campbell being born, would love to here your answer to that one.

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) 1 hr Married in 10,462
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... Mar 22 sharona 406
News Pope Francis to visit Egypt on April 28-29: Vat... Mar 18 For an ISLAM-FREE... 1
News Pope Francis 'urges parents to have fewer child... Mar 18 Newt G s Next Rel... 24
News Benedict's Resignation: Blame Obama Mar 14 Texxy 1
News Pope discusses climate, immigrants in historic ... (Sep '15) Mar 13 Wall specialist 49
News The Real 'Muslim Ban' Is Happening in Muslim Co... Mar 6 synchronized 1
More from around the web