Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protestants aren't proper Christians, says Pope
Daily Mail ^ | 11th July 2007 | SIMON CALDWELL

Posted on 07/10/2007 6:55:28 PM PDT by indcons

Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.

Protestant leaders immediately responded by saying the claims were offensive and would hurt efforts to promote ecumenism.

Roman Catholic- Anglican relations are already strained over the Church of England's plans to ordain homosexuals and women as bishops. The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.

It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.

As a result, it went on, Protestant churches have "no sacramental priesthood", effectively reaffirming the controversial Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless.

The document claimed the Catholic church was the "one true church of Christ".

Pope Benedict's commitment to the hardline teaching comes days after he reinstated the Mass in Latin, which was sidelined in the 1960s in an attempt to modernise.

The timing of the announcement fuelled speculation that the pontiff - regarded as an arch-conservative before his election in 2005 - is finally beginning to impose his views on the Catholic Church.

The Vatican said it was restating the position set out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000 in a document called Domine Jesus because theologians continued to misunderstand it.

At that time, Anglican leaders from around the world made their anger felt by snubbing an invitation to join Pope John Paul II as he proclaimed St Thomas More the patron saint of politicians.

Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.

He said the pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholics; pope; protestants; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 601-606 next last
To: Dr. Eckleburg
From a magazine article by Edward Panosian on the life of John Knox...

Truth can be stranger than fiction. It's hard to believe that Christians (of whatever group) could believe they honor Jesus and Truth by killing people.

181 posted on 07/11/2007 11:03:45 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Krankor

So, then, you concede Osama bin Laden’s brand of Islam is just as much the one, true religion as the Anglicans?


To him it probably is. To anyone, THEIR religion is the one true religion. Unfortunately, everyone else feels the need to convert each other, either by preaching or by force.


182 posted on 07/11/2007 11:05:39 AM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

bttt


183 posted on 07/11/2007 11:06:50 AM PDT by linn37 (Phlebotomists need love too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
he IS the valid successor to the Apostles, Starting with whom? Who was the frist head Apostle after Christ?

St. Peter, perhaps? I'm not even religious and knew that one. :)
184 posted on 07/11/2007 11:07:50 AM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Argus
Isn't Matthew 16:19 pretty clear in the matter that Jesus is assigning the power of binding and loosing to Peter, i.e. including the appointment of successors as the Rock of the Church?

I think your catechism gives a good explanation of whom the Rock is:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

The Rock is Jesus and the church is built on our Faith in Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God. The church militant is the body of indwelt believers.

Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say 'See Here!' or 'See There!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

185 posted on 07/11/2007 11:14:44 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
An allusion used as a metaphor does not necessarily imply that the occasion alluded to actually happened. It only proves that it is an apt comparison.
186 posted on 07/11/2007 11:16:28 AM PDT by jude24 (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: jddqr; Alamo-Girl; LeGrande; betty boop; Mad Dawg; xzins; .30Carbine; Quix; P-Marlowe; ...

“Issue all the edicts you want, but coming from a false church, they aren’t worth the paper they are written on”

Since God is no respector of persons, my edict is just as good as his and carries about as much weight as his. I also used a very high grade copy paper to hand write it on. My edict does not need footnotes, endnotes, glossary, pictures, diagrams or commentators to explain the obvious. “Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not upon your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths”. It says nothing about perpetual sacrifices or holy orders. Just “By grace are you saved through faith and not of yourself, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast.” It’s so simple, but then again, I guess you can’t make any money on it or build an impressive edifice around anything that easy to understand.


187 posted on 07/11/2007 11:18:11 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
So even if Muslims are descendants of Ishmael, Ishmael did not worship the Elohim of Abraham.

I think that there is more to the story here. Many people who read the Bible believe that once Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away that there was no more contact. The traditions of the Muslim world tell of Abraham and Ishmael building altars together in Mecca. This in fact may be true. The Old Testament was a record kept by the descendent's of Issac and I don't think they were interested at all in preserving anything other than their own story. We do get a clue though in Genesis 25:9.

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah...

This scripture supports the view that there was indeed contact between Abraham and Ishmael throughout Abraham's life. How else could Ishmael have known his father had died? If they did build altars in Mecca and elsewhere as the Muslim traditions hold then I think you can make a case that they did worship the same God.

188 posted on 07/11/2007 11:23:58 AM PDT by sandude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Really? When I used to live in Virginia I'd regularly have Baptists, upon learning I am RC, ask me "so how does a Catholic get to heaven?"

I can only speak to my experiences with individuals from the different denominations. However, my main point is that this is coming from the Pope himself as fact, not merely members of the congregation expressing an opinion...

189 posted on 07/11/2007 11:24:42 AM PDT by danneskjold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Actually, the inspiration of scripture by God Himself is found in scripture

No question. But where in the Bible does it say to *ONLY* rely on the Bible? You know, the word "Sola"?

190 posted on 07/11/2007 11:26:20 AM PDT by jddqr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

“424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”

Wait, wait, Martha recited the formula too, so maybe she is a “rockette”!

John 11:27, “She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”


191 posted on 07/11/2007 11:27:41 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I'm already tussling on this topic over here
192 posted on 07/11/2007 11:31:19 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jddqr; blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg; P-Marlowe

So, you have the choice between (A) God’s Words and (B) some man’s words.

Question: Would YOU choose A or B?


193 posted on 07/11/2007 11:31:31 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I think the word "improper" is an interpolation by the Daily Mail writer, not the Pope's actual word.

I don't know...I'm going by the text of the article, and it seems that the word "proper" is what was used...

Post 64

194 posted on 07/11/2007 11:32:38 AM PDT by danneskjold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I see more factual reason to believe the Pope

re my post indicating that it was James the Just, blood brother of Jesus, who was the head apostle after the crucification, with Peter and John in a councilor like position, (as Paul sneeringly referred to the three as "the so called pillars of the church") until Jame's death in 62 AD - and then other BLOOD relatives took James' place in succession for about 200 years - so it says in the KJV of the NT - but let's not let that get in the way of the ROMAN church's claim of succession 0 that eliminates the fact that Jesus had BLOOD siblings - and there was, in the beginning, a blood line of succession - which would negate the rule of ROME - and Gasp - mean that Mary didn't forever remain a virgin, which she was never so claimed to be until about 300 years AFTER the crucification -

There was a reason that the ROMAN church forbade, under penalty of death, people owning and reading for themselves, the Bible and the ROMAN church didn't sanction Catholics to read the NT until the middle of the 20th century. Too many things in the NT are spelled out clearly, if one reads with a discerning mind, that clearly is a disconnect with the ROMAN church =

"There is One God and One Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a Ransom for All, to be testified in due Time." —1 Tim. 2: 5, 6;

195 posted on 07/11/2007 11:36:38 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you so much for sharing that information!

Sad that so many people do not understand the price paid for our freedom to worship.

196 posted on 07/11/2007 11:47:11 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Question: Would YOU choose A or B?

BOTH A *and* B! God's word + the word of his vicar on earth.

197 posted on 07/11/2007 11:48:06 AM PDT by jddqr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Argus
Isn't Matthew 16:19 pretty clear in the matter that Jesus is assigning the power of binding and loosing to Peter, i.e. including the appointment of successors as the Rock of the Church?

Then why was it that James the Just, blood brother of Jesus, was the first ruling Apostle in Jerusalem after the crucification - with John and Peter basically in councilor positions, these three making up what Paul sneeringly referred to as "The so-called pillars of the Church"

It's all in the NT - James was the head Apostle until his death - stoned in the courtyard of the Temple by Temple Priests, in 62AD - and then other family members of Jesus succeeded - it's all there in the New Testament - the book that the Roman Church that came into being some 300+ years after the crucification, forbade, on pain of torture/death, to own or read for themselves - that they kept from being translated into the peoples own languages so they COULD - (Blast that Luther and King James!) = my own ancestors were arrested, harried and driven to sell their homes and, ultimately, leave their countries in order to have the freedom to own/read the Bible...and follow what Jesus, Himself, actually taught -

198 posted on 07/11/2007 11:48:29 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Frumanchu; topcat54; P-Marlowe
Obviously, to a Catholic, Protestantism and Muhammadanism [sic] are both in error. Both also contain some elements of truth.

But what's the difference between them, according to the Vatican?


199 posted on 07/11/2007 11:49:38 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (As heard on the Amish Radio Network! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1675029/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I’ll stand by Christ’s Blood and His saving TO THE UTTERMOST . . . His opinion, perspective is all that eternally matters, to me.

And to me as well.

To God be the glory!

200 posted on 07/11/2007 11:49:49 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 601-606 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson