Posted on 07/10/2007 8:57:47 AM PDT by f150sound
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."
"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.
I’m a big enough girl to suck it up and wait to see what His Holiness means with all this. I’m also over my initial fit of laughter at this entire process. We just bring in the Africans, the Protestants begin to heal, the Jews are speaking to us again, and the Pope needs to shake it up. It’s a mystery to me why, but then, much of life is just that — a mystery. Thank you for the rap on the knuckles, ma’am. I stand corrected.
I may be a Baptist, but I am proudly a Christian first.
I have had learned even more about Catholics from Soooothing Dave.
Thank you Mad Dog.
Somewhere along the way, someone decided they didn't like the idea of Peter and his successors as heads of the Church on earth, so they interpreted the scripture differently, and from there, other Christian communities emerged. Some were more closely tied to the Catholic Church, which was then called ROMAN Catholic, because Rome is where Peter ended up, and from there his successors administrated the Church.
Others, later on, rejected the Catholic Church totally, and began to denigrate her, to the point they even want to deny that she was founded from that early Church instituted by Jesus. Thus we are in the situation we have in the world today.
Please, please, read your Catechism. It clearly spells out the Church's position toward other Christian denominations. Also, see the exceprt from Dominus Iesus which I posted to you earlier.
This is not hostility coming from the Vatican, despite what the Catholic-bashers here and in the media would have you believe. It is drawing lines of distinction.
Do you believe sacraments matter or not?
“If you want to believe God commands you to hate Arabs in all times and all places”
Cite?
What exactly is unifying about this latest pronouncement that the only true church is theirs? No, that won't lead to bickering, now will it?
Except, of course, when Paul publicly disagreed with and rebuked Peter. It’s in his epistles.
As one of the 12 there’s no doubt that Peter had influence. I wouldn’t deny that. James and John had influence as well. That influence was godly guidance by experienced faithful, not decrees of damnation or threats of law suits (ala ECUSA). The leadership method recorded in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers shows that the early bishops approached issues by submitting to the Holy Spirit to guide them. Truth is not voted on in council or decreed by one mortal for all others to obey; it is revealed by the Lord through humble prayer and fasting.
It’s God perogative to think whatever He like. I didn’t say he told us to hate Arabs.
He certainly didn’t tell us to hate Jews, which the Catholic Church has done repeatedly in its history.
Hardly the case. If you weren't baptized when you were received into the Church, then your baptism was fine. Also, Pope Benedict (and numerous popes before him) have had nothing but good to speak about the study of Scripture. That's the one point where Catholics are so often very weak.
And try to remember, the Pope isn't just trying to 'shake it up'... each of these recent documents are underscoring something that has already been taught or believed by the Church. The Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Mass wasn't supposed to have ANYTHING to do with the Jews, but some of them have their knickers in a twist over ONE line of ONE prayer that is prayed ONCE a year, on Good Friday (and was toned down out of respect for them in 1960). This document shouldn't have Protestants (or anyone else) bent out of shape because it echoes Dominus Iesus, which was released a probably about ten years ago with the permission of Pope John Paul II. That and the relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are actually probably good places to look to understand this document.
Your first reaction to the last phrase may have been to discount it as being applicable to Roman Catholicism. But donÂ’t be too rash. The centerpiece of the Catholic Mass is the consumption of a wafer that is directly related to idolatry - based as it is upon the religious rituals first celebrated in Babylon, and later in Egypt, and pagan Rome. All the Messiah suggested during His last Passover meal, was that we should remember Him within the full prophetic symbolism of the Miqras of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits - all of which Catholics ignore. The way the "Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist" is practiced, and its connection to cannibalistic "Transubstantiation, where the bread is actually turned into the body of the Lord," and to the "Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary" represents "the practice of idolatry." Even the PriestÂ’s pagan-inspired celibacy, has been shown to lead directly to "an indulgence in sexual immorality."
There is a common theme to YahshuaÂ’s first four letters. They all address the consequence of tolerating false teachers and errant doctrines. In this case, the Thyatira Assembly did more than just permit evil in their presence; they pardoned the perpetrators and followed the false prophets. As a result they were seduced and deceived. Their clerics led them astray. It would cost them their souls.
To best understand the nature of this particular deception and how it coincides with the history of Medieval Catholicism we must journey back in time and see if we can ascertain the nature of the deceptive religion Jezebel taught. The book of Kings tells us that she was the wife of Ahab and thatÂ’s not good because he was bad. From what we can tell from Scripture, Jezebel was the prototype for the Whore of Babylon depicted later in Revelation. She promoted the Babylonian sungod Bel and the Queen of Heaven - the Mother Earth goddess Asherah. She was a cleric in the counterfeit religion of Mystery Babylon - one of their prophets. She even advanced the more modern notion that the moral law of the Torah was no longer applicable.
Jezebel’s Hebrew name tells us a great deal about this whore. ‘Yzebel means "to live with and exalt Bel." The "‘yz" portion of the compound word can mean: "woe or alas,’ or "a howling beast or jackal." This helps us flesh out her character and better understand the consequence of tolerating her wiles in our midst. The "bl" portion of her name forms the consonant basis of Lord/Bel, the title of the Babylonian sungod she served. But there is more. Zabal means "to live with me and to dwell in my residence. To zabal is "to loftily honor and to highly exalt." Even if we didn’t have the means to search Jezebel’s history, her name is sufficient to know that she was evil. Yet the Thyatira Church, representing Roman Catholicism in the Dark Ages, like the Jews before them, divorced Yahuweh and had married Ba’al’s whore. Having kicked God out, they allowed Satan to move in.
Since scripture is a cohesive whole, very little is left to chance interpretations. ThyatiraÂ’s Jezebel is a whore with a history. She was a central player in a scheme that played out much like the Roman Catholic Church, albeit in Israel a thousand years earlier. Starting with I Kings 16:25, we read about a sovereign named Omri, his son Ahab, and his sonÂ’s wife, Jezebel. Their story is worth considering because it has been reenacted on a more modern stage. In other words, to understand the full implication of Revelation we will have to turn back the clock one thousand years.
"And Omri did (‘asah - fashioned and created, prepared and produced, ordained, instituted, and accomplished) evil (ra’ - that which is disagreeable, displeasing, and malignant) in the sight of Yahuweh and was more wicked (ra’a’ -  evil, displeasing, and injurious; and was worse at breaking apart and tearing asunder) than all who were before him, for he walked in all the ways of Jeroboam (Yarob’am - the one who quarrels and complains, striving and contending against the people).... And his sins (chatta’ah - errant ways) were associated with (‘asher - and linked to) Yisra’el, causing her to go the wrong way (chata’ - incur guilt and forfeit redemption, receiving condemnation), provoking and angering (ka’ac - vexing, agitating, troubling, irritating, and distressing) Yahuweh, the ‘Elohiym of Yisra’el by their vanity (hebel - emptiness and hollow breath, gradual diminishment to nothingness, worthlessness, conceitedness, foolishness, and futility)." (I Kings 16:25-26)
 ‘Omri, like Constantine was a general before he became king. His name explains the nature of his plot. ‘Omri (עָמְרִי) is based upon ‘amar (עָמַר) and it means "to act like a Catholic." IÂ’ll grant you that this is a paraphrase, but the actual terminology is no less indicting. The primary definition defines religion: ‘amar is "to gather together and bind." Then it describes the Catholic behavior circa the Thyatira era: "to manipulate and deal tyrannically with." The conclusion is synonymous with diakonia, the Greek term Yahshua just used to describe these Catholics because ‘amar means "to treat people as if they were slaves."
In that Jeroboam was first king of the Northern Kingdom, his "ways" became the subject of HoseaÂ’s rebuke and the reason for YahuwehÂ’s divorce. The Northern kingdom was unfaithful, separating themselves from Yahuweh so that they could invite BaÂ’al, and his Babylonian religion, into their temples and homes. Moreover, everything you have read in the chapters of Yada Yahweh dedicated to HoseaÂ’s prophecies (Azab - Abandonment, Yashar - Stand Upright, ShawÂ’ - Desolation, Thanatos - Separation, and Ruach - Spirit) is now relevant to this discussion on Assembly of Thyatira - the dark age of Catholicism. It is one of many reasons Yahuweh had us spend so much time there. He has prepared us to understand Revelation.
The sad part of the passage we just read is that it reverberates to this very day. The errant ways of cleric and king affect the people themselves. When a nationÂ’s political and religious currents flow in a direction which is opposed to Yahuweh and His Word, they erode the foundation upon which people come to know God. In that way the whole nation or congregation incurs the guilt of their leaders, forfeiting redemption, and receiving condemnation in its place. The reason Yahuweh hates hierarchical religious and political institutions is because they inflict their venom on the populous, causing everyone to die. These things irritate Yahweh, provoking, agitating and angering Him. God views manÂ’s schemes, as well as those who echo them, as vain: "empty and hollow, worthlessness, conceited, foolish, and futile." They lead to having ones soul diminished to nothingness. And this is why Yahshua delineated His disgust for manÂ’s errant ways in His Revelation letters. He isnÂ’t so much bothered that popes will go to hell; itÂ’s that their errors have caused millions to follow them there.
I'm not sure what he gets out of it besides a crushing amount of administrative responsibility and a paycheck that a Mexican day laborer would laugh at.
Of course, the papacy is hardly the only Catholic distinctive.
Besides the first few lines sound sort of Jack Chickish....
Well as I said, I don’t have a baptism card (we didn’t get one) and I’ve moved churches several times since then. So I wouldn’t have proof
Real nice scholarship there, huh?
Free Republic’s software screwed up the formatting. I had to fix it.
Wrong, I read it on another thread. He didn’t say that the RC church is the only true church and that all others aren’t?
I thought it was funny.. as was the intention.
As to which kind of baptism counts, it may be by immersion, or by pouring. Of course, without any proof of baptism, and assuming you wanted to join the Catholic Church, you could always undergo a conditional Baptism.
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.