Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 555,063
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#511112 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Must we re-hash the abundant testimony of the Eastern Fathers re; St. Peter's primacy?
==

There are few that support supremacy as well. But the Cath sites arent happy with this. They have to stretch the truth and claim there are many.

Here is one example.

Dust Storm wrote referring to the following site:
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

HERE IS MY RESPONSE:

RE Response to Quotes from Chrysostom supporting Papal Supremacy:

“Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples"
Chrysosotom used exalted titles often. So did others during this period, including Augustine. This was a style at the time . We should not infer primary of jurisdiction from these titles.
Chrysostom uses coryphaeus, for example to refer to Peter, This was a general title He uses it to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul.

St. John Chrysostom:“‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession”[St. John, Homily 53 on St. Matthew].

Chrysostom comments:
“He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...”[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 82.3 on St. Matthew]

Rome wishes to apply only to St. Peter:“feed my lambs, feed my sheep”, which Rome wishes to apply only to St. Peter:

Chrysostom comments:
“This was not said to the Apostles and bishops only, but also to each one of us, however humble, to whom has been committed the care of the flock.”[Homilies on St. Matthew, 77th homily.

We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter.

Chrysostom states that Peter alone did not receive the charge of the world but John and Paul as well
Peter alone was not appointed teacher of the world So was Paul.
Peter was not the sole holder of the keys of heaven. So was John..

Chrysostom places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI, p. 169)

The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election (Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 76)

Chrysostom indicates the apostle John has equality with Peter, receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys with Peter:
And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world,(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

Chrysostom places Paul on an equal footing with Peter:
The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere (Homily 24, On Genesis..Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 165).

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#511113 Feb 1, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
That is okay, you provided the response I was expecting.
No I didn't. You actually expected me to follow you off on a path of vague indescription that you could easily manipulate to your liking, and I stopped the charade immediately.
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#511114 Feb 1, 2014
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:

Cly you no longer warrant further conversation. You are lost and the Lord has placed the map in your hand and it is called the Bible. Open it and find your way home to the truth only Scripture can provide.
Jesus Christ left His Apostles, disciples and ALL of His followers, HIS Visible, heirarchical and authoritative CHURCH------(Matthew 16, 13-21 and Acts 2)----- over 2000 years ago as the TRUTH------- verified by Paul as the Pillar, pinnacle and foundation of the TRUE (I Timothy 3:15)........Jesus Christs Church was Universal and it was Catholic!(confirmed over and over and over again for over again throughout over 2000 years of Apostolic Church History!!........ Jesus (never) left anyone a Bible!!!!...... Clay is not lost, disoriented and cofused OLDJG-------, but you are!!!!!.....
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#511115 Feb 1, 2014
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
You:
You said Acts 2:4 moron, not me.

Here is what was written again"
"See the unanimity of the apostles," he says, on Acts 2:4: "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach."

Not the Colon after 4. He says on Acts 2:4: The colon denotes further reading to see what he says on it or about it. "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach."

Galatians 2:9, "In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews."
So here we have the 3 listed as PILLARS of the church. And they accepted Paul. This I believe is the one single time that Peter is not listed first and yet all the other many tells are dsimissed when even here he is considered a Pillar and Paul went to see him specifically. But to you he is Satan and stupid.

You say
Paul rebuked Peter. Peter NEVER rebuked Paul. Just sayin'

Oh yes, from this we are to presume that because Peter who was not practicing what the preached was rebuked this one time brought up in order to give him credibility as an authority was now aserting himself as the clear leader. I think not and Paul himself doesn't agree. No you aren't just saying you were belittling Peter the stupid guy remember? Paul had some contention with his traveling companion too. I don't think any of them were above criticism nor were they perfect in every way. If they had every answer immediately then there would have been no debate on circumcision. However Paul was not bringing it up to belittle Peter the satanic idiot in your opinion.

Love the Altar boy comment btw very touching stuff. I am sure the Holy Spirit gave that to you. lol

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#511116 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholic Church teaches "both/and" in regards the meaning of "rock". Most Church fathers East and West do as well. The Orthodox believe and preach that St. Peter was given primacy by Christ. The only ones who insist it's definitely NOT the meaning are most evangelical fundamentalist protestants and maybe you and Sera.
===

and perhaps little John Chrysostom

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#511117 Feb 1, 2014
Gods R Delusions but Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, sure, and we forgive you anyhow. Get over it.
Remember, you are supposedly the one who knows and honors God's Will.
It's just that your posts don't reflect an inner peace that should come with such spiritual enlightenment.(Otherwise, what's the point, right?)
No conviction, Ox. After all, if you didn't have deep inner doubts, then there'd be no need to get frustrated and angry when others disagree with your (supposed) superior spiritual knowledge.
Ask God how to lead us to Him, not drive us away.
DUH!!! Isn't that what the Bible says your God wants?
Ramen
Rule #1 in Hollywood Lying 101....never tell a lie that can be easily proven so..
I stole not the man's religious book..I quoted Scripture that appears in any Christian Sacred Word of God....the Bible....
I interpretated not the man's religious book.
I did not call the man a pig for objecting....

Is there sonething else you want to discuss???

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#511118 Feb 1, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
You are looking at it...Lying Snake...
Da truff!!!!
You cannot refute the truth....
From my source: The refugees, many of whom were old and ill, were allowed across the border
My example applied to what was said: The refugees, many of whom were old and ill, built churches!!!! I am asking whom are those whom!!!!
If you need to know the source...find it as I did...use your search engine...
I know you are slow, so I'll type slowly:

The source you are plagiarizing above correctly uses "whom" as an object of the preposition "of". That places it in the objective case, where "whom" is appropriate.

The sentences *you* wrote had whom in the subjective case. You did not use the word as an object of a preposition or a verb.

Back to school for you.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#511119 Feb 1, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know anything....you said you only think you know....
Put this in your smoke and pipe it....For Whom the Bell Tolls is a novel by Ernest Hemingway published in 1940. It tells the story of Robert Jordan, a young American in the International Brigades attached
And that is an "objective" use of the word and is correct grammar.
You really are quite ignorant in your own arrogance.
Ancient proverb:
- People bring about their own undoing through their tongues.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511120 Feb 1, 2014
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
You are sad and lost. I do not hate anyone. Certainly not Peter and Mary. What I do hate is false doctrine and lies that mislead.
Peter WAS NOT the rock Jesus built His church on. The rock on which Jesus would build His Church was Peter’s confession in Matthew 16 verse 16 that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
I Corinthians 3:11, "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Seems pretty simple to me.
Now for Mary. Mary gave birth to Jesus and was a willing vessel in service to God. Nothing more.
1. Mary IS NOT a co-redeemer
2. Mary IS NOT a perpetual virgin
3. Mary WAS NOT assumed into heaven
4. Mary WAS NOT the immaculate conception
5. Mary IS NOT sinless
6. Mary IS NOT the mother of the church
7. Mary IS NOT the queen of heaven
8. Mary IS NOT the mother of God
9. Mary IS NOT co-mediator
Thank you, OldJG.
<quoted text>
I pity you. Let me give you something to think about. Did the blood of Mary run in the veins of Jesus?
Let me quote from Williams’ Practice of Obstetrics, Third Edition, page 133.
"The fetal blood in the vessels of the chorionic villae AT NO TIME GAINS ACCESS TO THE MATERNAL BLOOD in the intervillous space, BEING SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER by the double layer of chorionic epithelium."
Quoting from "Nurse’s Handbook of Obstetrics" by Louise Zabriskie, R.N., Fifth Edition, page 75:
"When the circulation of the blood begins in the embryo, it remains separate and distinct from that of the mother. All food and waste material which are interchanged between the embryo and the mother must pass through the blood vessel walls from one circulation to the other."
If Jesus had the blood of Mary running in His veins He would have been a son of Adam just as Mary is the daughter of Adam. And the Bible tells us what? I Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." Jesus had the blood of God.....not the blood of Adam and Mary. For Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice for our sin He could not be a son of Adam.
since I had suggested this several years ago that Jesus could not be related to Mary in any way, shape, or fashion, which would make Him half man/half God, which we know this is not possible, then we are left with only ONE alternative and that is, catholics are not allowed to think on their own, they MUST follow the lies told and taught to them by false teachers

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#511122 Feb 1, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have is incurable!!!
see any of your posts where you are falsely accusing me.....
I have provided a hugh multitude of them....Lying Snake
I have not falsely accused you, thief.

Now go find a permalink where I actually lie.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511123 Feb 1, 2014
Husker wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand that God knows all , nothing is impossible with God, God chose Mary because she was without sin. This is basic Christian Doctrine and if you don't believe this, then you don't believe Chriist is the Son of God. You are not Christian by your post. You doubt the word of God.
God CHOSE Mary because she was of the lineage of David, since the Bible is clear that all men(women) commit sin. look at Mary how she abandoned Jesus when He was a young child. a crime that today would place her in prison.

and it is not that as Christians, we doubt the Word of God, it is that we don't accept the lies of Catholicism, which is a big difference.

AFTER THE BIRTH OF JESUS, MARY BROUGHT A SIN OFFERRING.LOL

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#511124 Feb 1, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know anything....you said you only think you know....
Put this in your smoke and pipe it....For Whom the Bell Tolls is a novel by Ernest Hemingway published in 1940. It tells the story of Robert Jordan, a young American in the International Brigades attached
I know you're ignorant, child.

You prove it every time you use "whom" in the subjective case or use a plagiarized example of its proper usage in the objective case to justify your misuse.
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#511125 Feb 1, 2014
Jesus refers to Peter in two ways. Sometimes as Peter and other times as Simon Peter. Why?
Tango Bravo

Wichita, KS

#511126 Feb 1, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>since I had suggested this several years ago that Jesus could not be related to Mary in any way, shape, or fashion, which would make Him half man/half God, which we know this is not possible, then we are left with only ONE alternative and that is, catholics are not allowed to think on their own, they MUST follow the lies told and taught to them by false teachers
Thus we see that God fits, in His entirety, into the mind of atemcowboy who decides for himself what God can and cannot do as well as what God can and cannot be. Only Oxbow will continue to worship at his own alter. The rest of us will surely convert to worship the mind of atemcowboy who even God obeys.
truth

Perth, Australia

#511127 Feb 1, 2014
nobody care what you say

it is written
understood for understand

moja ce te desnica uzdignuti

zazoves li moje ime
bio je je okomi
iz koje nitko ziv nedize ruke ni glave
posjjetio ga je svecenik i molio nad njime i vidio da je tako

rekoh ti
zazvala se ime
i pocela moliti
nema vishe rekoh is gone his life gone
rekla sam mu
i drhtavo pocela moliti
zatim stop
presla sam na desnu stranu pokraj glave
over his forehead my hand go over
then
he weak up upright his hand and head
hereeee my dauther
there two point on wall bili su dva as cavli
cujem rekoh ti
pored tebe sam
moja ruka cete upgrate
dusha koja moli uzdize se bogu

i can be angry too
o yee
i don't liked liars

cavli razapetog rukeeeeeeeee
nkh=life u njoj bijashe zivot

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511128 Feb 1, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
His unsolicited comment re: St. John was in response to my posting of several scripture passages in support of St. Peter's leadership in the early Church, a belief which is held by the Orthodox Church as well. Blessings.
John, If I am not mistaken was the Bishop to the churches in Asia Minor which became the Orthodox Church as we know it today.

Peter if we are to believe [his] words(not the false teaching of Catholicism) was in Babylon Preaching to the Jews who lived there, which is according to the Bible as Peter was the Apostle to the Jewish Nation.

Of course, the catholics will counter that Peter preached to Cornelius a Gentile,. but this is easily refuted for ONE simple reason. Paul was Not yet converted, and with Peter and Cornelius, all things are done in Gods time, not ours.
truth

Perth, Australia

#511129 Feb 1, 2014
i am not your thief
noooooooooooooooooooooo

i can improve
your multiplay gameeeeeeeeeeeeee
using others as your shield as accuserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

INRI
b-z

where is other letter
proveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

accusersssssssssssssssssssssss sssssss
decivers and posessors
OldJG

Rockford, IL

#511130 Feb 1, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
You:
You said Acts 2:4 moron, not me.
Here is what was written again"
"See the unanimity of the apostles," he says, on Acts 2:4: "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach."
Not the Colon after 4. He says on Acts 2:4: The colon denotes further reading to see what he says on it or about it. "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach."
Galatians 2:9, "In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews."
So here we have the 3 listed as PILLARS of the church. And they accepted Paul. This I believe is the one single time that Peter is not listed first and yet all the other many tells are dsimissed when even here he is considered a Pillar and Paul went to see him specifically. But to you he is Satan and stupid.
You say
Paul rebuked Peter. Peter NEVER rebuked Paul. Just sayin'
Oh yes, from this we are to presume that because Peter who was not practicing what the preached was rebuked this one time brought up in order to give him credibility as an authority was now aserting himself as the clear leader. I think not and Paul himself doesn't agree. No you aren't just saying you were belittling Peter the stupid guy remember? Paul had some contention with his traveling companion too. I don't think any of them were above criticism nor were they perfect in every way. If they had every answer immediately then there would have been no debate on circumcision. However Paul was not bringing it up to belittle Peter the satanic idiot in your opinion.
Love the Altar boy comment btw very touching stuff. I am sure the Holy Spirit gave that to you. lol
Dust Storm said, quote, "Oh yes, from this we are to presume that because Peter who was not practicing what the preached was rebuked this one time brought up in order to give him credibility as an authority was now aserting himself as the clear leader." End quote.

You are saying Peter was rebuked one time? One time by Paul perhaps but many times by Jesus. Do you own a Bible? If so, open it up and read.

Dust Storm said, quote, "Paul had some contention with his traveling companion too." End quote.

Paul had a problem with John Mark. John Mark quit on Paul and Barnabus and went home. Barnabus wanted to take John Mark on their next journey but Paul would not allow it. As a result Paul and Barnabus went separate directions but were reunited.

Paul chastised Peter for preaching a "different" Gospel. A Gospel contrary to what he had learned while Peter was with Jesus. Paul and Barnabus had personality issues. Paul and Peter had Gospel issues. There is a HUGE difference.

You keep saying "I" called Peter satan. Can you read? If not, hire somone to read it for you. Here it is again. Now tell us..........who called Peter satan? Me or Jesus?

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter,“Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Now, who called Peter satan? Did you get it yet?

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#511131 Feb 1, 2014
people can say anything they wish concerning Peter but ONE thing is certain, He was the Apostle to the Jews not the gentile, therefore he can not be a leader to any Gentile Church, and by saying that he was,

YOU CALL GOD A LIAR.
truth

Perth, Australia

#511132 Feb 1, 2014
Abraham stay under law of curse!

where is blessing

cavliiiiiiiiiiiiii INRI

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
Pope hopes Turkey visit promotes peace 2 hr champion65 2
A Gentleman. 19 hr QUITTNER Nov27 2014 1
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Wed Crazy 8,633
Selfies with Pope Francis cardboard cutouts pop... Tue pazuzu 9
20 years after collapse of communism, the pope ... (Sep '09) Nov 25 God worships Sin ... 2
Man who sold fake immunity papers gets 3 A1 2 y... Nov 24 Economist 1
Bagnasco controversy over sacrament comments as... Nov 23 RevKen 1

Pope Benedict XVI People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE