Posted on 07/10/2007 8:00:34 AM PDT by Bladerunnuh
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism were not full churches of Jesus Christ.
Protestant leaders said this was offensive and would hurt inter-religious dialogue.
A 16-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict once headed, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of Pope.
But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in Protestant denominations.
"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.
The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I wonder what the Greek Orthodox Church has to say about this. During the apostolic era of church history, weren’t the first churches outside of Judea all Greek-speaking churches, including the churches established by the Apostle Paul in Macedonia and Greece ?
You just said that I don’t understand what you are saying. You also restated (in a very round about, yet very clear manner) exactly my point.
You are focusing on the Family issue of the Bible.
The Bible mentions money more than it does Love or family bonds.
Listing lineage does not constitute family bonds.
You read into it all that family bonds and the familial relations we all have are trumpeted throughout the Bible. I say “Bull”.
The reason for this is that our relationship with God is a personal choice. And while the wife is saved through the faith of the husband, someone has to take God into their own heart FIRST. You don’t get saved by simply following doctrine anymore than I would be a Buddhist for shaving my head, wearing a cloth, and moving to Tibet.
Certainly! Peter was a “rock” in that he accepted the “words of eternal life”. The other apostles were also “rocks” since on them the Church would continue.
Not my words but:
“The ‘Rock’ on which Christ will build His Church means Peter’s confession of FAITH in Christ”
St John Chrysostom 53rd Homily on St Matthew
“The Church, the house of the Lord, is built upon the foundations of the faith of the apostles and prophets.”
St Basil of Caesarea “Second Chapter of Isaiah”
“If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on Peter alone, what would you say of John, the ‘Son of Thunder’, What would you say of each of the apostles? Would you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter alone, but shall prevail against the others?- is not the title addressed to them all?”
Origen “Commentary on St Matthew”
” Jesus Christ is the Rock.He did not deny the grace of His name to Peter because he borrowed from the Rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. The Rock is thy faith and this faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shall be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the Rock - and this Rock is the profession of faith in Jesus Christ.”
St. Ambrose
“Thou art Peter ... but the Rock was Jesus Christ. Peter having confessed Him, as all the Church confesses Him, He then called Peter a rock for his faith.
St Augustine “Retractations” “Contra Julianum”
“Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon myself I will not be built upon thee. Those who wish to be built among men say, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephus. However those who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock (Jesus Christ) say, I am of of Jesus Christ.”
St Augustine Retractrations 13th Sermon
“Behold how Peter does all things by common consent and decides nothing by his own power or authority.”
St John Chrysostom
I have dozens more. Class dismissed.
You read into it all that family bonds and the familial relations we all have are trumpeted throughout the Bible.
I'm seriously questioning your reading comprehension.
Last try: Bible history is an explanation of God reclaiming His Family through expanding covenants culminating in the New Covenant for all by Jesus, His Son.
You are now changing your statements into “Bible history” and completely avoiding the original statement I made.
The only FACT anyone needs to be a Christian is: God’s sacrific of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
John 3:16.
The rest, is details.
You have begun to digress well beyond the point of our debate. If my reading comprehension is to be an issue, your attention span needs considerable looking at as well.
Your explanation does not satisfy me for one reason- it’s not concise.
The question at hand is “Why did God send Jesus?”
Your response is “to bring us all back into His family.”
Mine is “He loves me.”
Sure, since He loves me, He wants what you state- but your explanation is so sterile. So exclusive.
God loves me. And His Grace is sufficient for me. From there, we learn to listen to His Wisdom. Therefore, because of the relationship started (and proved) by His Sacrifice, the rest of His message NOW has meaning.
If He did not love us so, then the rest would be unimportant and of no consequence.
If you are familiar with computers, you might refer to this as the system’s Boot sequence. Without this code, the rest is useless flop. Software with no way to be understood. Not in any manner it’s MEANT to be understood, anyway.
using that criteria, Mormons are Christians, too. Slogans are silly.
comes down to authority, boy-wonder.
new tagline!
Not so. Mormons believe salvation is available through works, not faith alone. Frankly, I get bored responding to people who don’t understand Christian doctrine as laid out clearly in Scripture, but are real quick to use feeble human logic to support a meaningless argument.
This is where we part company. I see God's plan made known in the story of creation and our redemption first announced with the protoevangelium right after our fall... you see our relationship with Him started with Christ on the Cross. It's a matter of perspective.
Good night.
BTW, I see it more as the systems reboot sequence.
Then you don’t have a clue about loading the initial programs onto a computer.
This isn’t where we part company. Where we part is in our definition of being a Christian.
Jews know the Creation story. But we have Jesus.
At first blush this would appear to be contradicted by Saul's calling up the soul of Samuel via the medium at Endor (no Ewok jokes, please), and the transfiguration, to name two counterexamples.
Not to mention Jesus' remarks to the repentant thief on the cross, that this day you shall be with me in Paradise.
No flames; but if you have a considered response, please post it.
Full Disclosure: On second thought--I am leaving to move to Minnesota on Saturday. I probably won't be able to do anything about your response for at least several weeks. Cheers!
Cheers!
Idolatry as defined (say) by the Ten Commandments, or the Churches, would involve actual trust in the statue, relic, or the person represented by the statue or relic, "under its own steam" so to speak, rather than on the basis of its being a channel or conduit *by means of which* God communicates power or blessing--so that the faith remains ultimately in God.
By analogy, is it a lack of faith in God to ask another beliver to pray for you, or to trust in a ladder to hold you up absent divine providence?
Nice try, again, I say to you.
And now I really *have* to go and make my hotel reservations.
Cheers!
Cheers!
If that is the definition, then the Hindus don't worship idols.
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.