Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Breaveheart wrote:

I think being Cathlic is like going back to slavery!! Don't need to think any more!!

I don't think much of what you think....

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
"Take a fools word..." . I am afraid you are hoisted on your own petard.

Peter as a creature on the earth was subject to the bondage of corruption, and will be delivered at the coming of Jesus Christ when he/Perter is raised incorruptible and is changed into a glorious body as Jesus had after his resurrection.

Until then He and all the dead saints you pray to are in their graves awaiting this glorious event.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Act 13:37 But he,/Jesus whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

God is faithful wrote:

I posted this yesterday and you Catholics evidently did not have any answer...
SO I WILL POST IT AGAIN
~~~~~~~~~~
I dare you Roman catholics to give one scripture from the Torah, the Tanakh,(THE OLD TESTAMENT) for a reason for your existence.
Give a scripture to validate.
a universal Church, with headquarters in Rome
A papal succession
a Pope,
purgatory,
Worship of Idols,
Immaculate conception.
Holy assumption..
praying to dead saints..
Rosary,
rituals
repetitious prayers
and the forty or more inventions that
have been concocted by your pagan religion.
THE FACT THAT NO ONE RESPONDED IS PROOF ENOUGH...
THAT
THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE
(so called) ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN PROVE THAT IT IS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
IT IS NOT MENATIONED BY THE PROPHETS,
THE APOSTLES DOES NOT ALLUDE TO IT..
JESUS SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT..
IT IS A PAGAN RELIGION.....
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of
the apostles and
prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

No. Since this is about the umpteenth time you have posted this and since all of these misconceptions regarding the items you list have been addressed at one time or another repeatedly on this thread alone, we do what we increasingly are disposed to do when one attacks Catholic belief from a place of hatred and emnity. We ignore them as best we can.

Paul WV wrote:

<quoted text>
You've been on this thread long enough to know that the Catholic Church does not teach "all others are going to hell but them...".
muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, etc will enter the Kingdom of God before many of you self proclaimed "born again" christians that reject those whom Jesus has sent; the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

All I know is what I see and what you Roman Catholics have claimed over the months that I have posted here....

The name of this forum is ...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

I can read: as can all others that you accuse of being blind...

READ IT FOR YOUR SELF AND STOP LIEING

Dust Storm wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah John I am uninterested in a Ad Hominem expert like yourself who doesnt present facts but only dismisses everything as proof texting or a Roman Catholic Source. You do like to present opinions as facts. Your exchnanges with John, Myself and Keltec are more than I need to know about you.

Unfortunately for you “proof texting” is a well known and defined technique employed by many people. There is nothing wrong with pointing out when it is being used, as it was used in the “proofs” of vain papal claims. You are not being honest when you claim that I dismissed everything as proof texting, as if that was all that I did. I could have. But I didn’t. I explained to you and others why the “proof text” didn’t say what it pretended to say. Factually stated, in fact, why. That you wish to believe a proof text instead of looking at the text in context is your problem, nor is it opinion, but fact. It is unfortunate that you are unable to believe as fact anything that goes against what you have been told to believe. Again, not my problem.

Dust Storm wrote:

Then your hysterics with Mary reading into things she never said along with your continual jabs at the true Church.

Again you fail to speak the truth. I already mentioned her comment about presbyters, do I need to go through all of her lies and distortions about the true Church? And yes, I was critical of John since I expected him to at least attempt to correct her. Remember that for many years the Orthodox Church provided him a safe port while he was unhappy with what was going on in the Roman Catholic Church. Where he was free to worship God on a regular basis. I, in hindsight mistakenly, assumed that he would at least defend the Orthodox Church against Mary’s lies and distortions. But he wouldn’t. And didn’t.

I have here many times defended the Roman Catholic Church, even in areas that we don’t agree against unfair attacks by some of the Protestants. I guess it was foolish of me to expect a small return of the courtesy.

Neither did I read anything into what Mary said, I simply responded to what she actually said.

Dust Storm wrote:

You dont discuss John you never have. You preach with limited value I might add. You aren't worth it.

I state the facts. And from you all I get are personal attacks. It is hard to discuss when you set the terms of debate as you do. Why you won’t discuss the facts is clear.

Based on what?

To be continued….

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Since this is about the umpteenth time you have posted this and since all of these misconceptions regarding the items you list have been addressed at one time or another repeatedly on this thread alone, we do what we increasingly are disposed to do when one attacks Catholic belief from a place of hatred and emnity. We ignore them as best we can.

~~~~~~~

Your dance does not answer the questions of my former post....

You catholics always bring up smoke an mirrors when ask to give credibility From the Bible for the existence for you Pagan religion.

The fact remains that you all are a bunch of pagan liars and you have no validation nor credibility from the Old Testament for any thing you teach....

Yours is not a Christian Church.

Continuing with Dust Storm….

Dust Storm wrote:

<"In discussing the work of the Ravenna meeting, Cardinal Kasper observed with regret that the Russian Orthodox Church had not been involved in the deliberations. Delegates from the Moscow patriarchate walked out of the October meeting in a dispute about the inclusion of representatives from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which Moscow has refused to recognize.
Cardinal Kasper noted that the dispute over the Estonian delegation– which was supported by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople– is an “inter-Orthodox question,” in which the Vatican will not interfere. However, he said, the Holy See is anxious to see the problem resolved.

That is factual. But you still attacked the Russian Church. Wrongfully. Unless you knew the reasons for what went on you should either not form an opinion based in ignorance or you could ask why.

Dust Storm wrote:

The Russian Orthodox Church is by far the largest of the Eastern churches, and Vatican officials see the relationship with Moscow as a key to future ecumenical advances. As Cardinal Kasper put it,“we do not want to dialogue without the Russians.”
http://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/11...

That is true. And you have seen that dialogue over the decades.

Dust Storm wrote:

I really and sincerely do not have the time for this forum. However John yes I would say the Russians are an obstacle.

Based on what?

Dust Storm wrote:

Again I said that just because something was declared does not mean it was never believed and the fact that not all Orthodox agree with you is telling enouph. How very protestant of you to suggest otherwise.

Let’s clear up your double negative above. Are you saying that just because something was declared means that it was always believed? If you are, depending on what you are talking about, it may or may not be true. As for what other Orthodox think, or agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. I can point you to sites that claim the pope of Rome is a heretic. I don’t say that. Am I wrong since others think that? There are some Roman Catholic sites who don’t think that there has been a pope since God knows when, are they right and you wrong? If you want to define what the Roman Catholic Church teaches based on what anyone who sits in a pew from time to time thinks, might you not have a few problems?

Not being afraid of the truth there are things that we do leave to theological debate or opinion. It isn’t matters that affect our salvation so it doesn’t matter. You do the same thing with the Theotokos. Did she die or did she not? It isn’t hard to find folks who say yes and it isn’t hard folks who say no. Why is it somehow “OK” when you do it and it isn’t OK when we do?

To be continued….

God is faithful wrote:

All of you discussions about holy fathers ETC
an church history is moot if you cannot prove that you are Christian...
what you practice has pagan origin.
the religious rituals that you go through is of no consequences if you are not Christian ...
Until you can prove that you are established and sent by God with proof from the scriptures, your religious claims are not worth the time of day.
All of you rantings are not worth the paper that they were printed upon.
If you cannot bring prophetic proof from what is revealed by the Old Testament, you religion is much ado about nothing.
NO MATTER WHO SAID WHAT....
The new Testament fulfills what the Old Testament reveals....
There is no revelation in the Old Testament to validate your existence.

Spoken like a man who believes that all that Jesus taught can be know and understood can be found between the covers of a book.While we love,revere and refer to Holy Scripture as our primary tradition, we also believe it must be read in context and with the open, sincere guidance of scholarship and spiritual devotion. We have done this for 2,000 years and despite the attacks of those who would destroy our Faith out of fear and hatred, we will continue will continue to do so.

Continuing with Dust Storm….

Dust Storm wrote:

Maybe bible alone theology suits you better. You can then interpret anyway you want like you do history and tradition.

Making stuff up again and then attacking me for what I never said.

But as I have repeated shown you, it is the Roman Catholic Church that has tampered with both history and Tradition when necessary to support the vain papal claims.

Dust Storm wrote:

What is fact is hotly disputed. Isnt it obvious to you that Protestants do not recognize the Orthodox as having any authority along with the RCC? One would have to conclude no given your ridiculous answers.

Fact is fact. History is history. That you don’t want to believe either when it comes to vain papal claims is your problem.

Protestants, by and large, don’t see much difference between us. Do I expect them to see us as having any authority? No. But I won’t defend the authority that we do have using any lies or distortions. Not all Protestants are stupid or ignorant of history. You see some of the attacks on the Roman Church where they have the history correct, pointing out the distortions that come from some Roman Catholic apologists. By using those distortions you set yourself up for some of the attacks. Why do it?

Dust Storm wrote:

The Papacy has many arguments which you dismiss. As does the Doctrine of Purgatory. As for the reformation your sweeping statement placing all blame on Rome is nothing less than I would expect from ant-western Orthodox such as yourself.

The papacy has many arguments which I make. From an historical standpoint. I simply draw the line when it comes to most of what is the papacy of today. Most, not all.

The Doctrine of Purgatory is a creation out of thin air. Had you not changed the process of the Sacrament of Confession it would never have been created. If you had not adopted a “pay as you go” system of salvation, and thinking that one must “pay” for sins forgiven, it never would have been created. As I said before, all of your proof texts talk about a process but you have “a place”. There is a process, but there isn’t a place.

I realize that in your thought process any unfavorable comment about the Roman Catholic Church is some kind of atomic attack against her, but I never placed all the blame of the Reformation on Rome. Factually some things such as indulgences prompted part of it. Some of the excesses of Rome prompted it. Some of the intolerance prompted it. It could have been handled much better by Rome in some, maybe many, cases. But some of it was politics and other reasons also.

To be continued….

Continuing with Dust Storm….

Dust Storm wrote:

Your commentary on Bernadette is amusing. She could not read nor write. She did not know what it meant. She was not confused. And forget about all the miracles. Because it was declared Dogma is cheap on your part but in line with your character.

Benny Hinn creates “miracles” also. Watch his TV show sometimes.

So you are still saying that several years after the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary no one knew about it? That Lourdes somehow was left out of the loop?

She was fourteen when it happened. She wasn’t four. Girls were married off at that age. But you claim that she didn’t know what was Roman Catholic dogma. How do you know she did not know what it meant? How do you know that she was not prompted by someone?

And let’s not forget about some of the early scandals over “miracles” there which prompted the Roman Catholic Church to bar people from going there.

If you want to believe the whole story you are certainly free to. But as “proof” of the Roman Catholic Church’s dogma you will have to try harder.

Dust Storm wrote:

Then you say Peter took the keys. Another sweeping statement with nothing but opinion to back it up.

Which you follow up with your sweeping statement.

Dust Storm wrote:

Traditionally keys were handed down. It is a matter of tradition.

Then tell me why the Patriarch of Antioch doesn’t have the keys. Property first went to the first born and the Patriarch of Antioch was the older brother of the Bishop of Rome. That is a matter of tradition, and even law in some cases in years past.

To be continued….

Continuing with Dust Storm….

Dust Storm wrote:

Yes Rome has forged documents. Photius never had any deception or altered documents now did he? Of Course he did.

Prove it. You won’t since you can’t.

Dust Storm wrote:

In the world according to John the Eastern didnt have a care in the world what Rome thought and numerous examples of excercised authority are dismissed.

Never said we didn’t care what he thought.

But again you talk about numerous examples of exercised authority without an example of anything to prove it. Nothing to show where it was accepted. I have already told you of what happened when our St. Pope Leo the Great tried to exercise authority of the type you claimed and how his “command” was ignored.

And again, I am not including anything that was granted to either the pope of Rome in general or to a specific pope by canon law by the Church.

Dust Storm wrote:

I said things are declared and defined when they need be. You take it to a new level and say well then apostles didnt give the full message. Then why the need for the term theotokos or Trinity? Why the need for councils? Once again you ring as hollow as the Protestant you are. I could really care less what you think John and your responses are nothing but more wind.

Just reacting to what you said.

Christ and the Apostles gave us the faith once given. That would include the Trinity and the title Theotokos. The Councils confirmed that faith once given, they did not create new beliefs. Contrast that with the new beliefs of the Roman Catholic church on such things as the infallibility of the pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, purgatory, etc. All new beliefs that were never the belief of the Church, never handed down to us from Christ and the Apostles. All additions to the faith once given since for the Roman Catholic Church neither Christ nor the Apostles taught us everything we needed to know.

I posted this yesterday and you Catholics evidently did not have any answer...

SO I WILL POST IT AGAIN

~~~~~~~~~~

I dare you Roman catholics to give one scripture from the Torah, the Tanakh,(THE OLD TESTAMENT) for a reason for your existence.

Give a scripture to validate.

a universal Church, with headquarters in Rome

A papal succession

a Pope,

purgatory,

Worship of Idols,

Immaculate conception.

Holy assumption..

praying to dead saints..

Rosary,

rituals

repetitious prayers

and the forty or more inventions that

have been concocted by your pagan religion.

THE FACT THAT NO ONE RESPONDED IS PROOF ENOUGH...

THAT

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE
(so called) ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN PROVE THAT IT IS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

IT IS NOT MENATIONED BY THE PROPHETS,

THE APOSTLES DOES NOT ALLUDE TO IT..

JESUS SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT..

IT IS A PAGAN RELIGION.....

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of

the apostles and

prophets,

Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Go see this movie.

kelrec 9mm wrote:

<quoted text>
"On this chair, where Peter himself had sat, great Rome first placed Linus and bade him sit."
Tertullian, "Adversus Marcionem" (220 AD)

"first placed Linus" not "second placed Linus".

Even Tertullian didn't think that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

God is faithful wrote:

<quoted text>
~~~~~~~
Your dance does not answer the questions of my former post....
You catholics always bring up smoke an mirrors when ask to give credibility From the Bible for the existence for you Pagan religion.
The fact remains that you all are a bunch of pagan liars and you have no validation nor credibility from the Old Testament for any thing you teach....
Yours is not a Christian Church.

Change the subject a thousand time as you have in the past...

But you will face the truth in eternity...

Best face it now repent and believe the true gospel and be saved.

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
"first placed Linus" not "second placed Linus".
Even Tertullian didn't think that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

You can name names till you run out of Names..
IF THE CATHOLIC CHUCH CANNOT VALIDATE ITTSELF IT BY THE sCCRIPTURES IT IS MOOT...

But unless you can establish an Old testament validation for your pagan religion...IT IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING...

God is faithful wrote:

<quoted text>
Change the subject a thousand time as you have in the past...
But you will face the truth in eternity...
Best face it now repent and believe the true gospel and be saved.
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

God's plan of salvation: hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.

God is faithful wrote:

<quoted text>
~~~~~~~
Your dance does not answer the questions of my former post....
You catholics always bring up smoke an mirrors when ask to give credibility From the Bible for the existence for you Pagan religion.
The fact remains that you all are a bunch of pagan liars and you have no validation nor credibility from the Old Testament for any thing you teach....
Yours is not a Christian Church.

My car isn't mentioned in Holy Scripture either, but it gets me where I want to go....You ignore all "facts" that do not fit your singular and erroneous notions of what Scripture truly tells us and what Jesus taught.I'm afraid you just can't compete with what we know to be true no matter how often you repeat it.

John from NJ wrote:

Continuing with Dust Storm….
<quoted text>
Benny Hinn creates “miracles” also. Watch his TV show sometimes.
So you are still saying that several years after the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary no one knew about it? That Lourdes somehow was left out of the loop?
She was fourteen when it happened. She wasn’t four. Girls were married off at that age. But you claim that she didn’t know what was Roman Catholic dogma. How do you know she did not know what it meant? How do you know that she was not prompted by someone?
And let’s not forget about some of the early scandals over “miracles” there which prompted the Roman Catholic Church to bar people from going there.
If you want to believe the whole story you are certainly free to. But as “proof” of the Roman Catholic Church’s dogma you will have to try harder.
<quoted text>
Which you follow up with your sweeping statement.
<quoted text>
Then tell me why the Patriarch of Antioch doesn’t have the keys. Property first went to the first born and the Patriarch of Antioch was the older brother of the Bishop of Rome. That is a matter of tradition, and even law in some cases in years past.
To be continued….

Well I may or may not be posting to likek ind here but I will try.

John Keltec D.S. GeneD, NiatM,MM and alike don't care about the history the facts the biblical evidence.

They want to beleive they are in the One True yadda yadda, and literally come HELL or high water they have decided that there is no way they could have fallen for a Falsehood and not already be it in it via Rome.

When one goes into a discussion like this with that kind of Preson who has a Blinding Pride to all facts and reason that contradicts to that which they support, to that which contradicts their Beliefs and faith, and rejects those facts those truths solely on the basis of Pride that says I could not have been decieved therefore I must be right, only an act of God will release them.

The Best you or I can do with regards to Rome the Papacy is show its not Biblical or historical in the hope those here who are here searching will be enlightened by the truth and not fall for Romes lies.

I do however sense feel at times you are in the same boat.

But then your boat is my boat.

So lets Pray the HOlY SPIRIT moves and renews and reforms agian.

Come Holy Spirit Come.

WE need your Truth
Blessings.

God is faithful wrote:

I posted this yesterday and you Catholics evidently did not have any answer...
SO I WILL POST IT AGAIN
~~~~~~~~~~
I dare you Roman catholics to give one scripture from the Torah, the Tanakh,(THE OLD TESTAMENT) for a reason for your existence.
Give a scripture to validate.
a universal Church, with headquarters in Rome
A papal succession
a Pope,
purgatory,
Worship of Idols,
Immaculate conception.
Holy assumption..
praying to dead saints..
Rosary,
rituals
repetitious prayers
and the forty or more inventions that
have been concocted by your pagan religion.
THE FACT THAT NO ONE RESPONDED IS PROOF ENOUGH...
THAT
THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE
(so called) ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN PROVE THAT IT IS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
IT IS NOT MENATIONED BY THE PROPHETS,
THE APOSTLES DOES NOT ALLUDE TO IT..
JESUS SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT..
IT IS A PAGAN RELIGION.....
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of
the apostles and
prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

There is a word for someone who repeatedly says and does things, expecting a different result. If you keep this up ,I'm afraid your picture will appear next to it in the dictionary as an illustrative example.