What Can Protestants Expect From The New Pope?

In his first speech as pope, Benedict XVI declared, “The current Successor assumes as his primary commitment that of working tirelessly towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers.”1 Before he took the name Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had already established a name for himself as the “Vatican’s doctrinal watch-dog,” head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. In that capacity, Cardinal Ratzinger was the guiding hand in John Paul II’s famous encyclicals, such as Dominus Iesus, which continued to regard the theology of the Reformation as “gravely deficient.” Yet he has also led Vatican consultations with mainline Protestants and evangelicals. What can Modern Reformation readers expect of the new pope? Will he look back to the pre-conciliar legacy of the Inquisition (the former name of the Congregation he headed was once upon a time called the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition)? Or will he be a catalyst for Roman Catholic-Protestant unity? Or perhaps something in between? For all of us who care about truth and unity, these are not irrelevant questions.

What I’m offering here is not an essay so much as a series of quotations from some representative works written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger over the last twenty-five years. A prolific and colorful writer, Ratzinger is also a first-rate theologian: clear in argument, concise in presentation, and conversant with other traditions.

First, some background is necessary. While John Paul II can certainly be praised for his uncompromising stand on Christian social ethics and called for greater Christian unity, it must not be forgotten that he was regularly calling for a renewal of devotion to traditional Roman Catholic teaching, the cult of Mary, and in his papal visits to Latin America especially, warned against the incursion of Protestantism as if the Council of Trent had never been convened. All along the way, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was his theologian-in-residence.

In 1988, John Paul II issued a document calling the faithful to obtain plenary indulgences (offered every 25 years) in the jubilee year of the Church in 2000, which caused the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to pull out of the jubilee celebrations in Rome, although the Lutheran World Federation remained involved. The 1988 papal declaration outlined the conditions for the indulgence: “Catholics must have been to confession, and on the day they wish to receive the indulgence they must receive the Eucharist and pray in one of the various places, such as churches in Rome, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, in a Catholic cathedral or in any place where they are visiting those in difficulty. An indulgence can also be obtained in a jubilee year by refraining from smoking or alcohol and ‘donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor’ or by ‘devoting a suitable portion of personal free time to activities benefiting the community, or other similar forms of personal sacrifice.’”

On February 9-10, 2001, the Vatican’s Council for Promoting Christian Unity called upon the Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to engage in a consultation on indulgences. Dr. Idair Pedroso Mateus, a Reformed theologian from Brazil, who served on the consultation, likened indulgences to the “prosperity theology” of neo-pentecostalism.2 “An official ‘note’ by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warns that describing Protestant churches as ‘sister churches’ can cause ‘ambiguities,’” since the Church of Rome “’is not sister but ‘mother’ of all the particular Churches’” Furthermore, this appellation can only apply to “those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid episcopate and Eucharist.” The cardinal’s note, approved by Pope John Paul on June 9, is ‘to be held as authoritative and binding,’ according to Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the bishops’ conferences.”3

Then in September, 2000, the encyclical Dominus Iesus, signed by Ratzinger and promulgated by Pope John Paul, ignited a firestorm of protest, especially from Lutheran and Reformed bodies that had been engaged in fruitful ecumenical dialogue. On the other hand, defenders of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) read Dominus Iesus differently, as a statement on Rome’s side of “honest ecumenism,” which is only read negatively by left-of-center ecumenists. The phrase “gravely deficient” is directed at non-Christian religions. Non-Catholics are in a state of grace, their baptism is recognized, and they are therefore “in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”4

At the same time, The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity was engaged in ecumenical discussions on justification especially with the Lutheran World Federation, which issued in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (ET, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000): “The present Joint Declaration [1999] has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ,” despite remaining questions and issues (10-11). Building on previous consultations, the Joint Declaration affirmed remarkable agreement in essential points regarding justification and should be closely read as a clear advance in the ecumenical discussion. Nevertheless, key aspects of the evangelical doctrine of justification are, as in joint statements issuing from the U. S.-based group, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, are left unresolved while a common agreement in the gospel is nevertheless assumed. In other cases, particularly the capitulation on the Lutheran World Federation side to a definition of faith as “faith, hope, and love,” the evangelical doctrine of faith is explicitly rejected. Faith is love of God and neighbor, the document says (32). The conclusion of the Declaration is that the anathemas of each body no longer apply. “The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration. Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification (26).

While mainline Protestants demonstrate ambivalence about this new pope, probably in large measure because of their liberal biases in theology and ethics, evangelicals have been practically unanimous in their praise. While doctrinal tensions still exist, Benedict XVI is seen as building on the “culture of life” so admirably defended by John Paul II. As for Norman Geisler, “He’s going to hold the line” against liberalism and relativism.5

With this background, we now turn to some of the representative statements by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to obtain a better idea of what we might expect from his pontificate. Hopefully we will see that there is much to appreciate in an age of increasing pressure to conform the church’s message to the spirit of the age, while also recognizing the distance that remains between genuinely evangelical churches and the Bishop of Rome.

Current Trends in Catholic Doctrine
I will refer throughout to Cardinal Ratzinger, since the writings from which I am drawing pre-date his papacy, and I begin with The Ratzinger Report (1985).6 In describing the structure and content of Catholic faith, he argues against those who reduce the gospel to a banishment of all negative thinking, when sin is the obvious backdrop that cannot be underplayed. “The attempt to give Christianity a new publicity value by putting it in an unqualifiedly positive relationship to the world—by actually picturing it as a conversion to the world—corresponds to our feeling about life and hence continues to thrive” (56). Such “progressivism,” so widely praised in the years after Vatican II, “has today come under suspicion of being merely the apotheosis of the late-capitalist bourgeoisie, on which, instead of attacking it critically, it sheds a kind of religious glow.” “A Christianity that believes it has no other function than to be completely in tune with the spirit of the times has nothing to say and no meaning to offer…It is not the ideology of adaptation that will rescue Christianity,” despite their immediate publicity value, but only re-entering “the apostolic tradition [1 Cor 4:13]; nothing can rescue it but the prophetic courage to make its voice heard decisively and unmistakably at this very hour.” “Anyone who looks, however briefly, at the history of religion will learn to what extent it is dominated by the theme of guilt and atonement, with what abstruse and often strange efforts man has attempted to free himself form the burdensome feeling of guilt without being able actually to do so” (58). But the answer is metanoia, which is not only “repentance” (change of mind), as one finds it in Greek, but a full conversion of the soul and its actions (60-1).

Referring directly to the Hitler Youth movement’s slogan, says Rantzinger, Dietrich von Hildebrand writes, “Thus the fluidity of existence that is required of the Christian is, at the same time, ‘the exact opposite…of the cult of constant activity….’ In other words, Christian metanoia is, to all intents and purposes, identical with pistis (faith, constancy), a change that does not exclude constancy but makes it possible” (62). But it’s more than “a ‘formal conservatism,’ which is not necessarily grounded in truth (63). “In contrasting the two modes of change, von Hildebrand, I think, has made abundantly clear the true nature of the Christian readiness to change as opposed to that of the [Nazi] ‘cult of activity’” (64). “One thing above all should be clear [from the gospel as “good news”]: the joyous character of Christian faith does not depend on the effectiveness of ecclesiastical events. The Church is not a society for the promotion of good cheer, whose value rises and falls with the success of its activities,” like various social and civic institutions (81). He says he does not understand why theology cannot be communicated to the church today the way Luther’s catechism did, instead of the tortured textbooks we now have. In this respect, at least, the Reformation was simply recovering ancient catechesis, at least in form (Decalogue, Our Father, the sacraments, the Creed) (131).

An untiring foe of theologians who threaten traditional Catholic teaching, Ratzinger defends Vatican II while nevertheless challenging the left-wing excesses that followed in its wake. (Even the Council itself was divided between advocates of ressourcement (going back to the sources for the current situation) and aggiornamento (openness to change). “We need only recall the names of Odo Casel, Hugo Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou to have before our eyes a theology that knew—and knows—that it was close to the Scriptures because it was close to the Fathers. This situation seems, in the meantime, to have ceased to exist” (134). The historical-critical method and the faith of the Church are affirmed together in Vatican II (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), but these are in origin and purpose at odds. For the Church holds “the understanding of Holy Scripture as an inner unity in which one part sustains the other, has its existence in it, so that each part can be read and understood only in terms of the whole” (135-6).

He doesn’t think that Karl Rahner’s theology of self-transcendence gets it right either. Rahner was a key theologian at Vatican II, who argued that humanity is essentially open to God, revelation, and grace, and thus underscored the correlation between revelation and general human experience. Because of this, all people—even atheists, reveal that God’s grace is at work in their lives when they display love for their neighbor. But Ratzinger remains unconvinced:

He also offers terrific criticisms of existentialist theologies that pit ontology against history, as if the Chalcedonian affirmation, “Christ is God” (the “is” being an ontological statement), could be conceived as anything but historical (contra Docetism). The danger in Luther, fully realized in the existential theologies, was that it was “eventually forced to conclude that there is no ‘in itself’ outside the ‘for me,’ so that, ultimately, the existential interpretation becomes identified with what is interpreted” (186). In such theologies, too, he writes in his ‘In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, tr. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. (Eerdmans, 1990), “…nature is undermined for the sake of grace; it is robbed of its belongings and gives way, so to speak, before grace…There is a series of stages that must not be absorbed into a monism of grace.” Creation comes before redemption (94). Otherwise, there is “…a Gnostic disenchantment with creation” (95). He contrasts “the Gnostic model” and “the Christian model.” “Gnosticism will not entrust itself to a world already created, but only to a world still to be created” (97). “Only if the Redeemer is also Creator can he really be Redeemer…We can win the future only if we do not lose creation” (100). As we can see, there is much in Ratzinger’s critique of modern theology to appreciate.

Earlier in this report, Ratzinger expresses concerns repeated in other writings about the approach taken to doctrine in the church today. He had said at a conference in 1966, “And it seems important to me to discern the dangerous new triumphalism, a tendency to which precisely the very critics of the old triumphalism often succumb. So long as the Church is in pilgrimage on the earth she has no ground to boast of her own works” (cited here, 13). Those who argue for orthopraxis over orthodoxy forget that with this “facile” and “superficial slogan,” that “the contents of orthopraxis, the love of neighbor, radically change (always, but today above all) in keeping with the manner and way orthodoxy is understood” (23). “Heresy still exists…The word of Holy Scripture is valid for the Church of all times, just as man’s capacity for error remains. Hence the warning of Peter to protect oneself ‘from false prophets…false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views’ (2:1) is still relevant and valid. Error is not a complement to truth.” Nevertheless, excommunication itself is executed with restorative intentions (25).

He criticizes the “individualistic theology” of our time. “Every theologian now seems to want to be ‘creative.’ But his proper task is to deepen the common deposit of the faith as well as to help in understanding and proclaiming it, not ‘to create’ it” (71). “In this subjective view of theology, dogma is often viewed as an intolerable straight-jacket, an assault on the freedom of the individual scholar. But this loses sight of the fact that the dogmatic definition is rather a service to the truth, a gift offered to believers by the authority willed by God. Dogmas—as someone has said—are not walls that prevent us from seeing. On the contrary, they are windows that open upon the infinite” (72).

Confessional Protestants will resonate with the new pope’s concern about the state of catechesis: “Since theology can no longer transmit a common model of the faith, catechesis is also exposed to dismemberment and to constantly changing experiments,” in an interest not of teaching the whole Catholic faith, but in simply making “some elements…humanly ‘interesting’ (according to the cultural orientations of the moment).” Thus, our subjective interests and experiences, normed by the cultural moment, rather than the teaching of the Church is what is passed down to our children (72). In some circles, “catechism” is regarded as obsolete, but this is a break from the ancient church, revived in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (73).

The bond between Bible and Church has been broken. In the Protestant sphere this separation began at the time of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century and of late has also found entry into some Catholic scholarly circles. The historico-critical interpretation has certainly opened many and momentous possibilities for a better understanding of the biblical text. But by its very nature, it can illumine it only in its historical dimension and not explain it in its present-day claim on us. Where it forgets this limit it becomes illogical and therefore also unscientific. But then one also forgets that the Bible as present and future can be understood only in a vital association with the Church. The upshot is that one no longer reads it from the tradition of the Church as a point of departure and with the Church, but, instead, one starts from the newest method that presents itself as ‘scientific.’ With some scholars this independence has become outright opposition—so much so that for many the traditional faith of the Church no longer seems justified by critical exegesis but appears only as an obstacle to the authentic ‘modern’ understanding of Christianity. (74).

But “the separation of Church and Scripture tends to erode both from within.” A Church without Scripture is merely a human organization, while the Bible without the Church “is also no longer the powerfully effective Word of God, but an assemblage of various historical sources…” The scholar has taken the place of the Magisterium and the Bible has become a “closed book” to the whole church (75). “The rule of faith, yesterday as today, is not based on the discoveries (be they true or hypothetical) of biblical sources and layers but on the Bible just as it is, as it has been read in the Church since the time of the Fathers until now.” In fact, the saints, who did not have the benefit “scientific” exegesis, “were the ones who understood it best” (76). Although the history of the church cautions us against reverted back to an infallible magisterium, Ratzinger’s points about the necessity of a teaching office in the church and the superiority of premodern exegesis have been made by confessional Protestants for some time.

The Trinity is in need of rediscovery as well, since in much of theology today “The Son [is] reduced, the Father forgotten.” At least a practical “Arianism” is alive and well even among some “Catholic” theologians, where the faith centers on the “Jesus project” rather than on the Son of God. But especially since Freud, the Father has fallen under suspicion as well (77). One now wants a partner, a friend, perhaps a lover, but not the Creator God (78). Some catechisms and theologies don’t even start with God, creation, and Adam, but with Abraham. “By so doing, God is no longer God—if reduced in this way to Christ alone, if possible even only to the man Jesus.” Not surprisingly, such theologies don’t know what to do with the materiality of this world, including the concreteness of “the Eucharist, the virginity of Mary, the concrete and real Resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection of the body promised to all at the end of history.” By contrast, the Apostles’ Creed begins with “God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth” (78).

From here, Ratzinger insists that we must “restore a place to original sin,” a doctrine to which he hopes to devote an entire volume (78). “In fact, if it is no longer understood that man is in a state of alienation (that is not only economic and social and, consequently, one that is not resolvable by his efforts alone), one no longer understands the necessity of Christ the Redeemer. The whole structure of the faith is threatened by this. The inability to understand ‘original sin’ and to make it understandable is really one of the most difficult problems of present-day theology and pastoral ministry” (79).

If there is no original sin in history, then there is no need of redemption in history (80).

“The Christian would be remiss toward his brethren if he did not proclaim the Christ who first and foremost brings redemption from sin; if he did not proclaim the reality of the alienation (the ‘Fall’) and, at the same time, the reality of the grace that redeems us, that liberates us; if he did not proclaim that, in order to effect a restoration of our original nature, a help from outside is necessary; if he did not proclaim that the insistence upon self-realization, upon self-salvation does not lead to redemption but to destruction; finally, if he did not proclaim that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to abandon oneself to Love” (81).

While we differ on the details, the following challenges to a reconstitution of the church as a voluntary society are bracing: “But the Church of Christ is not a party, not an association, not a club. Her deep and permanent structure is not democratic but sacramental, consequently hierarchical” (49). He complains that in the new liturgy, “Lord Jesus Christ, look not upon my sins…” has been changed to “…our sins,” which can hide “the necessity of a personal admission of one’s own fault” and need for “personal conversion” in “the anonymous mass of ‘We,’ of he group, of the ‘system,’ of humanity. Hence, in the end, where all have sinned, nobody seems to have sinned.” The “I” and the “we” are intertwined, but neither can be lost (51). Even the pope had to pray this prayer, although it did not entail that the Church herself “as such was also a sinner” (52). Bishops are often becoming administrators, bureaucrats, specialists, managers, and public relations officers, rather than pastors (65-6).

Like his predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul II, Ratzinger insists that we need also to remind ourselves of the reality of Satan. “Whatever the less discerning theologians may say, the devil, as far as Christian belief is concerned, is a puzzling but real, personal and not merely symbolic presence. He is a powerful reality (‘the prince of this world,’ as he is called by the New Testament, which continually reminds us of his existence), a baneful super-human freedom directed against God’s freedom.” Only God can liberate us from him, which is what he has done in the person and work of Christ (138-9). “The peace and innocence of paganism is one of the many myths of our time.” Caught in the grip of the devil and demonic forces, non-Christian religions cannot liberate their adherents. Christ can and, in fact, has brought liberation from fear wherever his “good news” has gone (139). We cannot simply regard the devil as a symbol for evil; otherwise, we become sociologists, not exegetes (143). And those who suggest that we can no longer believe in such things have not thought very deeply about the twentieth century.

On purgatory and limbo, Ratzinger says, “The fact is that all of us today think we are so good that we deserve nothing less than heaven! No doubt our civilization is responsible for this in that it focuses on mitigating circumstances and alibis in the attempt to take away people’s sense of guilt, of sin” (145-6). The rejection of purgatory is often founded not on the same rationale as the rejection of hell, but on “Protestant biblicism,” which could not find the doctrine in scripture (146). He cites examples from Calvin and Luther, but concludes that the pervasiveness of prayers for the dead in the world proves that “if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it” (146). Ratzinger even defends the practice of indulgences (147). “Limbo” (a place where unbaptized infants go, since they have only the stain of original sin) was never a defined dogma, and Ratzinger personally believes that the Church should dispense with it, so long as the principle—viz., the necessity of baptism for remission of original sin is kept in tact (147).

Issues of Catholic Practice
We can also expect continuity between John Paul II and Benedict XVI on morality. “Economic liberalism creates its exact counterpart, permissivism, on the moral plane,” according to which Catholic social and moral teaching can only be regarded as unreasonable (83). Sex has been unhinged from marriage, motherhood, and procreation, with technological manipulation gaining ground (84). Now, “…pleasure, the libido of the individual, [has] become the only possible point of reference of sex…Hence, it naturally follows that all forms of sexual gratification are transformed into the ‘rights’ of the individual. Thus, to cite an especially current example, homosexuality becomes an inalienable right” (85). Many moral theologians are adopting the heretical (Marcion) view that the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) represents the Old Testament that has been transcended by the New and that we are even moving beyond revelation altogether into autonomous reason (89).

Especially in the United States, God’s commands have been replaced by consequentialism—the view that nothing in itself is good or bad, but the consequences (90). “Actually, all this has already been described with precision in the first pages of the Bible…: ‘You will be like God’ (Gen 3:5)” (91). We also cannot adopt whatever language we like for God, as radical feminists suggest. “Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose…I am, in fact, convinced that what feminism promotes in its radical form is no longer the Christianity that we know; it is another religion” (97). Christianity and feminism announce two different gods, authorities, views of human nature, doctrines of salvation, and final destiny (98). The remedy to feminism is renewing our commitment to Mary, although it may create obstacles “in the way of a reunion with our evangelical fellow Christians…” (104-5). Concerning the alleged apparitions of Mary at Lourdes and Fatima, including the “secret” prophecies of the latter, John Paul II was deeply committed, but Ratzinger seems more guarded: “No apparition is indispensable to the faith; Revelation terminated with Jesus Christ. He himself is the Revelation. But we certainly cannot prevent God from speaking to our time through simple persons and also through extraordinary signs that point to the insufficiency of the cultures stamped by rationalism and positivism that dominate us. The apparitions that the Church has officially approved—especially Lourdes and Fatima—have their precise place in the development of the life of the Church in the last century” (111).

The spiritual disciplines have fallen off because people say they don’t have time. “Well, this uncontested but significant ‘sacrifice’ [the daily office] has been replaced by TV-viewing until well into the night” (115). In the years following Vatican II, there was an emphasis on a “non-sacral” piety “open to the world,” but now there is a renewal of the ancient spiritualities of “flight from the world”—the realization that we are not defined by this world (116).

Concerned that many of the new liturgies exhibit little sense of the holiness of God, Ratzinger says that it has become a “show,” like a spectacle produced by Hollywood (127-8). Our liturgy must reflect our theology: “solemnity, not triumphalism” (130). Yet “Pure archaism is fruitless, as is pure modernization” (132). The Eucharist is its heart, “the common sacrifice of the Church…the sacramental renewal of Christ’s sacrifice” (132-3). Against the advice of “the liturgical ‘archaeologists’” who insist that such things as the Corpus Christi processions never existed in the early centuries, Ratzinger insists that they are nevertheless part of the developing spirit of ancient Christianity (133). Renewal of the Rosary is a spiritual discipline that should be constantly renewed (134).

Finally, given all of the discussion of Ratzinger’s brief involvement in the Hitler Youth, it is interesting to note his observation on that period: “First of all, I am bound to say that the faithful core of the Lutheran Church played an outstanding part in resisting Hitler. I remember the Barmen Declaration of May 31, 1934, in which the ‘Confessing Church’ dissociated itself from the ‘German Christians’ and so performed a fundamental act of opposition to Hitler’s totalitarian aspirations…Karl Barth expressed this very clearly in his refusal to take the oath administered to State officials” (167). Yet he treats the German Catholic church as above the fray altogether (168), which, of course, it certainly was not.

Unflinching in his discipline of Latin American theologians, Ratzinger says that liberation theology fails to bring true liberation, since it insists on “the immanentist perspective, the exclusively earthly standpoint of secularist liberation programs,” forgetting “that radical slavery which the ‘world’ does not notice, which it actually denies, namely, the radical slavery of sin” (173). He offers both an extended critique of liberation theology (173-186) and of capitalism (186-190). “What is theologically unacceptable here, and socially dangerous, is this mixture of Bible, Christology, politics, sociology and economics. Holy Scripture and theology cannot be misused to absolutize and sacralize a theory concerning the socio-political order.” It is the call to conversion from sin, not merely “changing the social and economic structures,” that the Church proclaims (190).

Ecumenical Relations
Having written his doctoral dissertation on Augustine, Ratzinger displays remarkable commitment to the Augustian theological heritage and recognizes significant areas of agreement with Protestants who share it. Furthermore, he sympathizes with the concerns of the reformers in the sixteenth century, following on the heels of the schism between rival popes in Rome and Avignon. Once more, in Principles of Catholic Theology, he writes,

He adds, “The possibility remains of taking this or that position with regard to the many-faceted legacy of the Reformation and of thus actually taking new steps to leave the past behind or, on the other hand, of assimilating from that legacy whatever is of permanent value” (222). For instance, with respect to Lutherans, what would it mean to recognize the Augsburg Confession? “It certainly does not mean that this document would be shown, by historical textual analysis, to be a correct or, at least, a dogmatically unobjectionable and permissible statement of Catholic doctrine” (227).

Whatever important gains in ecumenical openness Vatican II announced, it is important to see its continuity with Trent. More recent statements confirm this fact. In Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), drafted by Ratzinger’s successor as prefect and ratified by Paul VI, we read, “The visible Church is herself also the spiritual Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. And even more strongly: this one and only Church, which is at once spiritual and earthly, is so concrete that she can be called by name: she ‘subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in union with that successor.’” There is no ambiguity, Ratzinger observes: “—the full identity between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church—is clearly set forth…; but this full concreteness of the Church does not mean that every other Church can be only a non-Church” (230-1). “The followers of Christ are not permitted to imagine that Christ’s Church is nothing more than a collection (divided but still possessing a certain unity) of churches and ecclesial communities” (231). He also defends papal infallibility (234).
Trent’s internal reforms were only progressively and never fully realized. “I am convinced that we will make progress today, not by turning away from Trent, but only by a radicalization of what is to be found there” (266).

While Ratzinger displays careful exegesis of relevant texts and affirms a sense in which Christ’s mediation is exclusive, he argues that because Christ himself cannot be separated from his body, the church through its priesthood participates in that mediatorial work. “In consequence, the Church, insofar as she is ‘one in Christ Jesus,’ shares in his mediatorship. She is mediation with God because she is the form in which Christ remains present in history” (272-3). His real targets often are Kung and Schillebeeckx, not to mention the liberation theologians. Replacing “church” with “community”: “It should be noted that the concept of ‘gospel’ is as obscure as the concept of ‘community’ in recent Catholic publications. The fact that it is most frequently used in texts that are critical of the Church shows something of its Reformation character, although it is not clear (as Luther’s doctrine of justification is clear) precisely in what this consists. Instead of the great religious earnestness that Luther’s criticism of the Church manifests precisely because of this doctrine of justification, vague attitudes frequently appear that regard the ‘gospel’ all too often from the banal perspective of something ‘happy’ (the ‘good news’)” (291, fn 17).

In the Ratzinger Report, we are told that Vatican II has been left behind by the liberals and excoriated by some conservatives as a virtual repudiation of Trent and Vatican I. “Over against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.” Therefore, “It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I” (28). “It is not Christians who oppose the world, but rather the world which opposes itself to them when the truth about God, about Christ and about man is proclaimed. The world waxes indignant when sin and grace are called by their names. After the phase of indiscriminate ‘openness’ it is time that the Christian reacquire the consciousness of belonging to a minority and of often being in opposition to what is obvious, plausible and natural for that mentality which the New Testament calls—and certainly not in a positive sense—the ‘spirit of the world.’ It is time to find again the courage of nonconformism, the capacity to oppose many of the trends of the surrounding culture, renouncing a certain euphoric post-conciliar solidarity” (37). Charles Borromeo’s Catholic reforms (38-9). Trent was only made effective as its doctrinal reforms led to “a wave of holiness” among the people (42). “As John Paul II said in his commemoration of Borromeo in Milan: ‘the Church of today does not need any new reformers. The Church needs new saints’” (42-3). “Even with some theologians, the Church appears to be a human construction, an instrument created by us and one which we ourselves can freely reorganize according to the requirements of the moment. In other words, in many ways a conception of the Church is spreading in Catholic thought, and even in Catholic theology, that cannot even be called Protestant in a ‘classic’ sense. Many current ecclesiological ideas, rather, refer to the model of certain North American ‘free churches,’ in which in the past believers took refuge from the oppressive model of the ‘State Church’ produced by the Reformation. Those refugees, no longer believing in an institutional Church willed by Christ, and wanting at the same time to escape the State Church, created their own church, an organization structured according to their needs” (45-6).

The church is not simply “the People of God,” but “the Body of Christ”—ecclesiology is anchored in Christology (47).

A decided distinction is drawn between “classic” Protestantism (identified with Lutheran and Reformed confessions) and “sects,” which show little regard for the history of the church.

Whereas the theology of the Eastern Churches has never aspired to anything but patristic theology, the attitude of the Reformation toward the Fathers was, from the beginning—and still is—ambiguous. Melanchthon strove emphatically to prove that the heritage of the ancient Church, which had been abandoned by medieval Catholicism, was restored in the Confessio Augustana; Flaccius Illyricus, the first great historian of the Reformation, followed in his footsteps, and the work of Calvin, with its radical reliance on Augustine, takes the same direction. By contrast, Luther’s attitude to the Fathers, including Augustine, was always more critical (140).

Ratzinger is concerned with the spread of millennial-eschatological sects is in part a reaction against the poor preaching and teaching in the churches, but thinks that the apocalyptic prophecies delivered by Mary at Fatima can be a good alternative to such sects (118). “Sola scriptura” has led to a “free church” ecclesiology. “For the modern man in the street, the most obvious concept of the Church is what technically one would call Congregationalist or Free Church” (156-7).

What would the response be if Martin Luther had appeared on the scene today? Ratzinger replies, “Yes, I do think that even today we would have to speak with him very seriously, and that today too his teaching could not be regarded as ‘Catholic theology.’ Otherwise, there would be no need of the ecumenical dialogue, which is a way of getting into a critical discussion with Luther and asking how the great things in his theology can be held fast while what is un-Catholic can be overcome” (157-8). At the heart is his aberrant ecclesiology, which placed the exegete above the magisterium (158). Good signs: “An exclusive insistence on the sola scriptura of classic Protestantism could not possibly survive, and today it is in crisis more than ever precisely as a result of that ‘scientific’ exegesis which arose in, and was pioneered by, the Reformed theology” (160). For the churches of the Reformation, “it will always be hard, if not impossible,” to accept the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, which in principle denies ministerial orders to Protestant ministers (160-1). “As an example he [Ratzinger] cites Rome’s renewed refusal to allow ‘intercommunion,’ i.e., the possibility of a Catholic participating in the eucharist of a Reformed church. He says, ‘But it is not a question of intolerance or of ecumenical reticence: the Catholic confession is that without the apostolic succession there is no genuine priesthood, and hence there can be no sacramental Eucharist in the proper sense. We believe that the Founder of Christianity himself wanted it this way’” (161). Although there is reciprocal recognition of each other’s sacraments and ministry, the Orthodox also remain separated from Rome. “They cannot accept that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the principle and center of unity in a universal Church understood as communio…Humanly speaking I do not see how there could be complete union, beyond the initial phase of practical steps which have already been taken” (162). The break with Protestantism remains serious. “The Eucharist is life, and, so far, we cannot share this life with those who have such a different understanding of the Church and the sacraments” (163). He adds that he has never been attracted to Protestantism, either in theology or practice (166).

With respect to other religions, Ratzinger reaffirms Vatican II while attempting to steer clear of a religious relativism.

Already in Vatican II we have the “emanation” theory of relation to Rome, according to which religions are connected to Christ as rays to the sun. Some are fuller of the sun’s brightness than others. In Redemptor Hominis (John Paul II's first encyclical, 1978), and The Attitude of the Church Toward the Followers of Other Religions (1984), Islam was recognized as a way to God, since Moslems are “spiritual descendents of Abraham” This is quite remarkable, given the New Testament argument that not even Jews are "spiritual descendents of Abraham" unless they have faith in Christ. In Lumen Gentium 16, Jews are closest of all non-Christian religions (with their own covenant of salvation), “followed by those who acknowledge the Creator, first of these being Muslims who profess the faith of Abraham; they are followed by those who seek the unknown God in shadows and images; and finally come those who have never heard of the gospel but try to live a good life according to their consciences.”

At the end of the day, therefore, our divisions remain because outstanding and unsettled differences over matters at the very heart of the Gospel, and therefore, of that faith that we profess. Not only Roman Catholics, but Protestants—including evangelicals, will have reason to be encouraged by many of the new pope’s teachings. And even where we disagree, often the same—sometimes worse, aberrations can be found in our own ambit. What we all need most is a new reformation that once again is struck by the wonder of a gospel that is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone—to the glory of God alone. We pray earnestly for a widespread rediscovery of this heavenly message prophesied by the prophets, incarnated in Christ, and proclaimed by his apostles. Only in that prayer can we anticipate a fuller unity for the followers of Jesus Christ.

As having the same Head (Christ), churches are united in having individual members who are brothers and sisters in Christ. They are not united by organization. You are contradicting yourself. IF the Body was purely invisible, who is Jesus refering to in Matthew 18 when He mentions "the Church"? How can you take a problem of the last resort that you have with another Christian to an invisible body??? And tell me, do you think that the Apostles, a visible body of chosen men, were NOT an organization? They had a government, they had rules, and they had leadership within it. They ordained successors to themselves latter on. As time went on, they formed Councils to determine the answer to the question on circumcision. They came together to plan out the strategy of evangelization to the Gentiles. They sent money back to the "home" Church in Jerusalem (not invisible money sent to an invisible church). When Paul traveled to Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc, he was going to invisible communities? He didn't leave anyone behind in a leadership role, such as Timothy and Titus? And when Paul wrote letters, did it go to invisible places and was read by invisible people??? See where this is going? The Church is quite visible. It is clear from the Scriptures that we are to only follow THOSE men, as their teachings come from God!

No, no contradiction, just differences (2Tim.2:15-'rightly dividing')

There is an organized Church, which is composed of various offices and duties.

In the Organized church, one may have both believers and unbelievers.

The spiritual church is only composed of believers, united by the Holy Spirit after the New Birth (Jn.3), being Justfied by Faith, not works (Eph.2:8, Tit.3:5).

This was the 'mystery' revealed to Paul (Eph.3).

Even the OT assembly could be called a 'church' (Acts.7:38)

Thus, there is two aspects to the 'church'.

An organization that should be only composed of believers in Christ (but sometimes is not) whose goal is to grow in grace (Eph.4), and the spiritual church, the Body of Christ, His Bride, which can only be composed of believers since one can only become part of it through the new birth, being baptized by the Holy Spirit into it.

Thus, even though the various churchs are divided by differing doctrines, if one is saved, there is unity among the individuals, not among the differing churches

Your Old Testament doesn't match our Old Testament. That's the Protestant's fault. We use the same Scriptures that the Apostles used in the New Testament. Over 80% of OT verses found in the NT are from the Septaugint.

Where did you get that bit of nonsense from?

Would you like to start a thread on the Septuagint?

You accept the Apocrypha books as scripture. You are again incorrect. There is no Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible

There isn't?

Oh, you mean you just don't call them Apocrypha books.

You have 14 Books that you regard as Canonical, which we do not.

As for the New Testament, there are differences within the Books themselves. You mean translations?

I mean the Greek text that the Roman Catholic Church Bible uses, the Critical Text, not the Received Text of Erasmus or Beza.

The Roman Catholic bible is not the Christian Bible. I guess Christianity didn't exist until the Protestant Reformation, then. I wonder why Jesus didn't protect His Church like He promised...

Oh, the Church existed as did the Bible.

It was only driven underground by the Romanists who attempted to destroy both.

How do you know the Roman Catholic Church is even a church unless you make the circular argument appealing to Matthew 16 as proof. I didn't initially approach the Bible as God's Word, but as a valuable historical book. Based on ALL the writings of this time period, I have come to the conclusion that those men DID believe that the Messiah had come to them in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. I trust their witness - and their witness to the Scriptures as being inspired by God. Thus, I don't use Matthew 16 as my proof text! I utilize the writings that we have available to us from the first few centuries and have found them trustworthy.

And how many writings refer to Christianity during that period?

Very, very few!

What we know of Christianity, historically, we get mostly from the Bible, not from secular historical sources.

Those men believed in something called Apostolic Succession. They believed that God protected the writings of the first teachers that were sent by Christ, called Apostles. And they believed that God continued to protect them. Their witness was proven in the blood of martyrs and the confessors of the faith. This is not a circular argument, brother.

Now, you are asserting what you need to prove.

Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'?

It sure isn't in the Bible!

You have to have a Bible before you can even discuss what a church is or isn't. The Bible came before the Church? WOW! Amazing....Where does Jesus give the Apostles a Bible? Did He commission them to preach and teach all that He taught them, giving them pamphlets and bible tracts? Do you actually have any clue on how the first Christian communities were formed? By oral teaching! NO NT BIBLE YET!

Oh, and they had no Old Testament!

What was Christ, Peter and Paul quoting all the time?

The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing.

We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on.

It is the Bible which gives us the truth of what a church is or isn't, not any particular church. "But if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15.

Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes (Rom.16:5,1Cor.16:19)

By the way, what version did you get that quote from?

The King James does not have the word 'expedient' in it.

It doesn't match the Douey-Rheims or the NAB either.

Brother, the Bible again disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and read the whole NT before you start making groundless assertions.

Since I read the Bible through a number of times a year, I am quite confident of my views.

But anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success.

The church discussed in Matthew 16 is the organization that is built on faith in Christ who is the Rock (1Pe.2:8) and the only foundation for the true church Sir, how can a human organization be invisible? Do you realize what you are saying when you write things? By the way, who is called "Kephas - Rock in Aramaic" in the New Testament? Jesus or Simon PETER? Boy, those "Christians" were a confused bunch, they couldn't even figure out why they called Simon "Kephas"....

Did I say the organization was invisible?

The churches were local assemblies composed of people who may or may not be Christians.

The true unity lies not in the organization but in the organism which is the Body of Christ united spiritually through rebirth (Jn.3)

That is why even though churches may differ, there are probably believers in most of them, even in the Roman Catholic Church despite what they teach.

As for the Aramic nonsense, you had to go to that myth since even the Latin did not help you out with that verse.

Peter states that the Rock is Christ (1Pe.2:8).

The Church is built on Christ (1Cor.3:11)

Those churches are local, not united under any human head or gov't. They shared the same faith, the same baptism, the same loaf, and the same leadership. Yes, brother, they were united in the faith under the leadership of the Apostles. That is quite clear in the New Testament.

If they shared the same faith, then they were indeed united-spiritually

Sharing the same loaf doesn't mean one is saved since even Judas participted in the Last Supper.

The spiritual church (made up of all those who believe in the saving work of Christ) is revealed by Paul, to whom alone it was revealed (Eph.3:3) and who revealed it to Peter (2Pe.3:15-16) I don't find ANYWHERE in the NT that denies a visible organization of believers. You foist that interpretation onto Scriptures when it is just not there.

Did I say that there was not a visible organization of believers?

I said that the visible organiztion can be composed of both believers and unbelievers (as even the original Apostles were).

The essential unity lies in the sharing of the same faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ and depending on that for ones salvation (not works).

Salvation doesn't come from any organized church, salvation comes from the words of God (Rom.10:17, 1Pe.1:23).

It is salvation which places one in the Body of Christ, the Church, the Bride of Christ, and then one joins a local church to grow in the Lord. (Eph.4)

Paul shared the SAME Gospel as the other Apostles. He didn't teach a different Gospel - if you read Galatians chapter one, you'd see that.

Amen, Paul did share the same Gospel as the Apostles, which was by Faith alone, in Christ alone.

A Roman Catholic appealing to the Book of Galatians!

Will wonders never cease! LOL!

I disagree. There's a very clear organization pictured in the new testament. That's what the council of Jerusalem was all about, that's why Paul went privately to the leaders, that's why Paul appointed Titus to appoint elders in churches. It's all very clear to me, and I cannot deny it. There was a very obviously, overtly referenced, connected system.

There was certainly offices (Bishops/Pastors/Elders/Deacons) but the organization consisted of local churches.

Now, in the 1st century of Christianity, before the completion of the New Testament, when churches would be established, it was the Apostles who were given responsibility of overseeing them.

The Council in Acts had to deal with the Gentiles being accepted as being equal with the Jews.

Remember even Peter and Barnabas had a problem with this later on (Gal.2).

The true church is made of only believers united by spiritual Baptism into the Body of Christ.

There are many visible churches, which contain both saved and unsaved people, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

Thus, there is two aspects to the 'church'.

I never denied that and the statements you make before this. I am defending the NECESSITY of having a VISIBLE Church so as to be able to even take into consideration Matthew 18. Certainly, Jesus clearly tells us through His parables and teachings that some "inside" the visible Church are not of the Elect. For example, see Mat 7:21.

Thus, even though the various churchs are divided by differing doctrines, if one is saved, there is unity among the individuals, not among the differing churches

There were NO "various" churches divided by doctrines in the Scriptures! What we have now is not what was present in Scriptures. The various communities shared the SAME faith and the SAME loaf. They shared in communion, they were one Body in more than just name. We do not share in communion. That is why we call Protestants "separated brothers". Sure, we are united in many things, but on some essentials, we disagree. We do not all recognize the Lord in the Breaking of the Bread.

With that said, the Church accurately considers that individual Protestants can be united to the Catholic Church - while the entire community is not. There are a lot of unwitting Catholics and a lot of "Catholics" who are not...

Regards

Where did you get that bit of nonsense from? Would you like to start a thread on the Septuagint?

Not in particular. I already have enough letters to respond to without proving that the earth is round again and again...

You have 14 Books that you regard as Canonical, which we do not.

Fourteen? What religion are you again???

I mean the Greek text that the Roman Catholic Church Bible uses, the Critical Text, not the Received Text of Erasmus or Beza.

Since when is the "received text of Erasmus" the official text of the Church? I suppose next, we'll be switching to the "received text" of Joseph Smith? Since when is "critical text" infallibly guided by the Spirit?

Oh, the Church existed as did the Bible. It was only driven underground by the Romanists who attempted to destroy both.

Your funny. Yea, the "Romanists" had lots of political power the first 300 years of Christianity, didn't they...

I got more serious letters to respond to. Good day.

And how many writings refer to Christianity during that period? Very, very few!

LOL! There are 10 volumes of Christian writings that precede the Council of Nicea in 325. Perhaps you should consider reading them. There are also a number of writings outside this collection. Please!

Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'? It sure isn't in the Bible

Since you are not aware of the Church Fathers' massive amounts of writing, it is not surprising you have not heard of what the Church believed in the first couple of centuries. As to the Scripture, one merely needs to read the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles to figure out that men were being commissioned by the original apostles to continue the Work of the Body - to bring the Kingdom of God to a new generation of men. Didn't Christ say that He would be with men for all generations?

The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing. We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on.

Of course it was. But you misunderstand what "tradition" is. It is not oral tradition today. It was orally given initially before the Scriptures were written. But eventaullly, all of this got written down. Tradition is not something that is passed along orally TODAY. It is just something that the Apostles didn't directly address when the were writing letters to communities. They didn't find it necessary to teach EVERYTHING through those letters. It wasn't necessary to rehash EVERYTHING - only those things that people were unsure on or where there were problems.

Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes

Think for a second here. Christianity was an outlawed religion. It did not have the status of a protected religion like Judaism. It is ridiculous to think that the Church should have cathedrals in the first 300 years!

By the way, what version did you get that quote from?

Either the KJV or the NKJV. I don't remember.

anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success.

Ditto, brother.

Regards

The churches were local assemblies composed of people who may or may not be Christians.

Think of what you are saying...If I have a problem that CANNOT be resolved among us, I am to take it to an assembly that "may or may not be Christian"? I am supposed to submit my obedience in their judgment on the issue to them? LOL!

As for the Aramic nonsense, you had to go to that myth since even the Latin did not help you out with that verse.

Are you going to explain the word "Kephas" or not?

Peter states that the Rock is Christ (1Pe.2:8).

Different context. Why are YOU calling Simon a rock?

The Church is built on Christ (1Cor.3:11)

Does it say "but not Simon Peter"?

Salvation doesn't come from any organized church, salvation comes from the words of God (Rom.10:17, 1Pe.1:23).

Salvation comes THROUGH the Church, not FROM the Church. You wouldn't have the Word of God, now, would you, without the Church?

Amen, Paul did share the same Gospel as the Apostles, which was by Faith alone, in Christ alone.

You have read the Scriptures through over and over and you believe that? Where does the Scripture say we are saved by faith ALONE? What nonsense.

A Roman Catholic appealing to the Book of Galatians!

Why wouldn't I? It is inspired Scripture, just as much as any other book. It teaches Catholic Doctrine. I don't have problems with Galatians, when read in light of the Church's teachings.

Regards

The churches were local assemblies composed of people who may or may not be Christians. Think of what you are saying...If I have a problem that CANNOT be resolved among us, I am to take it to an assembly that "may or may not be Christian"? I am supposed to submit my obedience in their judgment on the issue to them? LOL!

That is why we have adult water Baptism, to insure (as best we can) that the local church is composed of individual Christians.

The fact is that a local church well may be composed of unbelievers as well as believers.

You think everyone in a church is saved?

As for the Aramic nonsense, you had to go to that myth since even the Latin did not help you out with that verse. Are you going to explain the word "Kephas" or not?

Why do I need to explain 'Cephas' when that was not what was used in Matthew 16:18, Petros was used.

Since Petros is masculine and 'Petra' is neuter (upon this rock, I will build my church) Christ could not have been referring to Peter as being the 'Rock' upon which the church is built.

That is why Rome ran to the Aramic (having no gender) to state that the word in the 'original' was not Petros, but Cephas.

That Peter had a name in Aramic is not relevant to the question of what is being said in Matthew 16:18.

Peter states that the Rock is Christ (1Pe.2:8). Different context. Why are YOU calling Simon a rock?

I am not calling Simon a rock.

Literally his name (Petro) means 'a small stone', so maybe we should call him 'pebbles'.

Peter was part of that large Rock, which is Christ.

That was based on his confession of faith in Him. (Matthew 16:16)

The Church is built on Christ (1Cor.3:11) Does it say "but not Simon Peter"?

It doesn't have to, Peter states who the church is built on (1Pe.2:8) and never once does he point to himself as being that Rock.

He knew who the Rock was, you ought to listen to him and follow the real Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ, not the faker in Rome.

Salvation doesn't come from any organized church, salvation comes from the words of God (Rom.10:17, 1Pe.1:23). Salvation comes THROUGH the Church, not FROM the Church. You wouldn't have the Word of God, now, would you, without the Church?

The church did not give us the words of God, the Holy Spirit did.

He also gave us individual spiritual gifts that recognized the New Testament scriptures as being from Him.

Salvation gets you into the Church (spiritual body of Christ) but comes by the hearing and believing the words of God (1Thess. 2:13)

Amen, Paul did share the same Gospel as the Apostles, which was by Faith alone, in Christ alone. You have read the Scriptures through over and over and you believe that? Where does the Scripture say we are saved by faith ALONE? What nonsense.

Well, you must never have read Rom.4:5, Gal.2:16, Eph.2:8-9, Tit.3:5?

What part of 'without works' do you not understand?

A Roman Catholic appealing to the Book of Galatians! Why wouldn't I? It is inspired Scripture, just as much as any other book. It teaches Catholic Doctrine. I don't have problems with Galatians, when read in light of the Church's teachings.

It teaches anti-Catholic doctrine, it teaches Christian freedom in Christ, through faith alone.

The Galatians were going back to Jewish rituals to add to their faith, but were rebuked by Paul for doing so.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would prevert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed....I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal.1:7-8,2:21)

That last verse in chapter 2 came after Paul rebuked Peter for going back to the Law. (Gal.2:11) Regards

Likewise.

And how many writings refer to Christianity during that period? Very, very few! LOL! There are 10 volumes of Christian writings that precede the Council of Nicea in 325. Perhaps you should consider reading them. There are also a number of writings outside this collection. Please!

Those writings are not secular history, they are religious writings.

We have very little secular history from the 1st century that gives us any knowledge of Christ outside of the Bible.

What we know about Christ and the Apostles comes from the Bible, not outside sources

Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'? It sure isn't in the Bible Since you are not aware of the Church Fathers' massive amounts of writing, it is not surprising you have not heard of what the Church believed in the first couple of centuries.

And what do the 'Church Fathers' have to do with historical proof of Apostolic sucession.

The Roman Catholic Church began in the 4th Century.

No Apostolic sucession for the first 300 years.

As to the Scripture, one merely needs to read the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles to figure out that men were being commissioned by the original apostles to continue the Work of the Body - to bring the Kingdom of God to a new generation of men. Didn't Christ say that He would be with men for all generations?

Men were commissioned to lead the churches throughout the first century, other Apostles such as Timothy, Silvanus, James the Lord's (half) brother(Gal.1:9)(LOL!).

These men finished the work of overseeing the churches until the completion of the NT Canon in 96 AD.

The last writing we have from an Apostle is from John, the Book of Revelation, which warns us about false Apostles (Rev.2:2)

As for Christ being with the church, He is since He indwells each believer at the moment (not process) of salvation (Jn.14:23, Col.1:27)

The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing. We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on. Of course it was. But you misunderstand what "tradition" is. It is not oral tradition today. It was orally given initially before the Scriptures were written. But eventaullly, all of this got written down. Tradition is not something that is passed along orally TODAY. It is just something that the Apostles didn't directly address when the were writing letters to communities. They didn't find it necessary to teach EVERYTHING through those letters. It wasn't necessary to rehash EVERYTHING - only those things that people were unsure on or where there were problems.

Well so much for the Bible!

What God had written down is what God wants us to know, not some 'tradition' that seems to get changed when it is convient to do so.

Christ had no use for any traditon that went against the Holy Scriptures (Mk.7:7)

Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes Think for a second here. Christianity was an outlawed religion. It did not have the status of a protected religion like Judaism. It is ridiculous to think that the Church should have cathedrals in the first 300 years!

Christianity was not in homes because of persecution, but because there was no need for a building.

The cathedrals came when Church and State united and forced everyone to be a 'Catholic'.

By the way, what version did you get that quote from? Either the KJV or the NKJV. I don't remember.

Well, neither have the word 'expedient' in it.

You probably had another verse in mind and mixed them together.

anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success. Ditto, brother. Regards

Amen.

Where did you get that bit of nonsense from? Would you like to start a thread on the Septuagint? Not in particular. I already have enough letters to respond to without proving that the earth is round again and again...

Well, there is no historical evidence of a BC Septuagint.

The Septuagint that we have today came from Origen in the 3rd Century AD.

Neither Christ nor the Apostles ever used any Greek Old Testament.

You have 14 Books that you regard as Canonical, which we do not. Fourteen? What religion are you again???

Are we now playing games?

The Roman Catholic Canon has in it the following books which Christians do not.

The Book of Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Macaabees, , the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and additions to the Book of Daniel.

So the Roman Catholic Bible contains at least 8 additional books.

These are 'apocrypha' Books, which even Jerome rejected as being equal with scripture (Deutro-canonical)

I mean the Greek text that the Roman Catholic Church Bible uses, the Critical Text, not the Received Text of Erasmus or Beza. Since when is the "received text of Erasmus" the official text of the Church? I suppose next, we'll be switching to the "received text" of Joseph Smith? Since when is "critical text" infallibly guided by the Spirit?

The 'text' is the preserved words of God and since, 'by their fruits you shall know them' we know that it is this textual tradition that represents the true New Testament.

From that Received Text is the one that resulted in the people getting the Bible back into their native language (Luther, Tyndale), so they could understand the words of God and not be held in bondage by the empty rituals of Romanism.

Oh, the Church existed as did the Bible. It was only driven underground by the Romanists who attempted to destroy both. Your funny. Yea, the "Romanists" had lots of political power the first 300 years of Christianity, didn't they...

The Romanists did not exist during the first three hundred years of the Church.

The persecution by the Romanists came after they aligned themselves with the State in the 4th century.

Since the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the first 3 centuries they cannot take any credit for the preservation of the scriptures.

I got more serious letters to respond to. Good day.

I am sure you do, I hope you respond to them more honestly then you did this one.

Thus, there is two aspects to the 'church'. I never denied that and the statements you make before this. I am defending the NECESSITY of having a VISIBLE Church so as to be able to even take into consideration Matthew 18. Certainly, Jesus clearly tells us through His parables and teachings that some "inside" the visible Church are not of the Elect. For example, see Mat 7:21.

Did I deny the necessity of having a visible church?

Since you admit that unbelievers can be part of that visible church, then just being a member of any visible church does not mean one is saved.

However, if one is a member of Christ's spiritual church (Body, Bride) then he must be saved since that only occurs when the Holy Spirit brings it about after faith in Christ (1Cor.12:13)

Thus, even though the various churchs are divided by differing doctrines, if one is saved, there is unity among the individuals, not among the differing churches There were NO "various" churches divided by doctrines in the Scriptures! What we have now is not what was present in Scriptures. The various communities shared the SAME faith and the SAME loaf. They shared in communion, they were one Body in more than just name. We do not share in communion. That is why we call Protestants "separated brothers". Sure, we are united in many things, but on some essentials, we disagree. We do not all recognize the Lord in the Breaking of the Bread.

Well, the Protestants do recognize the Lord when the break bread.

What they do not recognize is what the Romanists have said the bread becomes (God Himself).

Now, since Judas 'broke bread' with Christ Himself and was not saved, the breaking of Bread cannot be the source of unity, but only an outward manifestion of that unity (like water baptism).

The true unity must come from the spiritual unity that exists when each individual is united to Christ and thus, becomes 'brother and sister' in the Lord.

Doctrinal differences cannot change that fact.

No, individual Protestants are united to Christ not the Catholic Church (funny how you guys keep confusing the two).

There may even be saved Catholics, who have received Christ by faith alone and still remain part of the RCC.

In that case, they also are united with the Protestant believers spiritually.

That goes even for Mormons and JW's who despite what their churches teach, are saved.

Many of these received the Gospel as children in other Protestant churches, and could have been saved then.

Regards

Likewise.

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.