Discussion: Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the only true Christian church?

Yes he speaks for the whole church but did my eyes decieve me or did the article say that his TOUGHEST opposition came from WITHIN the church, which says to me that eventhough the Pope thought one way the CHURCH thought another way. So what your saying is because he is the Pope everyone went along with it just because he speaks for the whole church EVENthough they may not have shared his ideas.

That sounds like a great place to be, were the people I put my FAITH in sit there and lie to my face and go along with the Pope for the time being.

 

Jimmy Swaggart is a pornographer and a fornicator. He has no credibility with the majority of Christians.

From the Council of Trent:

http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html

The distinction between excommunication and anathema from newadvent.org:

Protestants neither accept the entirety of the Vulgate nor the doctrine of infant baptism. Q.E.D. we are Anathema.

Anathema = Removing a person from the body of Christ removes their salvation. GMan, you're wrong.

 

That is why we need a Pope. The stubborness of man would have prevented the apology. John Paul II often said that truth could not be left up to democracy. The truth was that some in the church in the past and in the future have and will abuse their power. Some will abuse this power in the name of the Church and in the name of Christ. John Paul II in line with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome had vision enough to move past the stuborness and to repent.

 

So if Pope John Paul didnt come along then the church would have contunied to LIVE LIES. Something they have done for years, and eventhough Pope John Paul did alot for the world to believe that he CHANGED the church something that has stood for years is just unbelieveable. He was one man that DISAGREED with the CHURCH and if you think so highly of him WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE CHURCH!

 

First the Church has never changed. Second John Paul II did come along and apologize for the past sins of those in the Church. If he had not the Holy Spirit would have found another vessel to champion this apology. John Paul II did not disagree with the Church. He disagreed with individuals who thought that past abuses of power by Catholics did not reflect on the Church. The Church in and of itself cannot sin because it is of God. John Paul recognized the stain sinful men put on a divine institution and did what he could to wash that stain away.

 

Anathema was abolished as a penalty under the new Cannon law set up in 1983.

Secondly anathema is not automatic. It was a rite that had to be performed. There are not enough hours in eternity to anthemize all heretics. Just because someone does not agree with a doctrine does not mean they were anathemized. It just means they were subject to the penalty. It was performed so rarely, generally only against the most vehement anti-Catholics that it was aboloished. Martin Luther didn't even get it.

Thirdly anathema does not equate to loss of salvation. Any repentant sinner even one who spreads false doctrine will have his salvation.

Lastly to be in anathema requires one to have full knowledge of the truth and to still reject it and teach things contrary to it.

 

Then how or why did it take so long. Could it be possibly that there were other vessels provided by the holy spirit but THEY were sileneced by those that felt that no wrong was done. And if that I was under the impression that all preist and memebers of the church were with the holy spirit thats what I remeber from when I took my first communion. And if that is the case then how could it be that all these bad things could even take place in the name of the church.

And even the Pope at times has been at the center of these faults. The Crusades, they had to came before the pope and be granted permission to go and do their deeds.

You can change it to read or say whatever you like it to say and read but what I remeber from Holy Ghost were i went to school was that the memebers of the cloth were filled with the holy spirit and were to a degree beyond anything sinful, but now since all the crap has come to light the church has had to change their image in the public eye.

And this happens even in governments its not just a religion thing this is a fact of life, BUT the Catholic church excluding Pope john Paul on some matters believes that they are right in ever matter because they spin it so that they do come out right.

Hell every member of this forums with a little bit of thinking can justify all the wrong doings in their life if they wanted too.

The most powerfully GOVERNMENT in the entire world is the Catholic Church and there is something wrong with that.

 

The thing is and what goes back to my very first post, this is something that no one can make a clear and cut argument for or aganist, because you are dealing with peoples beliefs.

It takes a LIFE CHANGING event to make someone even consider changing their belief structure. And most people I know will argue until their last breathe that they and what they have been taught is the one and one way to live.

And I again I said simple that I believe that the churches not just the Catholic church is WRONG. It was not suppose to be this way.

Churches were originally created to give people of a certain faith a place to feel safe while they worship and to give comfort to each other. That is what a churches first purpose was for, so that people that wanted to practice their choice of religion would not be locked up and killed for those beliefs.

Never was the church destined to pass judgement on other people which happens every single day.

How many times have you ever said an ill word about someone with a different religion then you, and not just religion but what about people who believe in wicken and things like that.

Some of the same things that the churches do today are the things that were done to them before they were able to find safety in a church, and the churches themselves have FORGOTTEN that. People are so quick to point the finger at someone else that doesnt believe they way that they do that they forget that at some point and time that finger was being pointed at them.

We can discuss theology until we are blue in the face but thats not the problem the problem is the unwillingness to be able to accept the other beliefs in the world. You dont have to agree with what they believe but the ablity to accpet that they have a different belief is where it is at.


I was catholic and no i do not agree with everything the catholic church stands for, I become methodist and still could not find comfort there and was begining to think that maybe religion wasnt for me. It wasnt until I gave myself to the Lord that I realized that it wasnt religion that I was having trouble with but it was in the way I was reciving it.

 

The verbage says "let him be anathema". Not, "let him be subject to the rite of anathema" but "let him be anathema". In other words, let him be removed from the Body of Christ. Your newadvent.org site says it clear as mud.

Being that "anathema" was abolished, wouldn't you agree that any abrogation of teaching renders the whole institution null and void?

Said by the Vatican II, but that is a ridiculous statement. How could one have full knowledge and full belief in something but teach contradictions?

This teaching is in direct contradiction with those of the Council of Trent. Are you as impetuous to claim that God would inspire one pope to write teachings which completely disagree with those of another?

 

this entire thread is going to hell.