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.
This is the same paper as the one from 2000 — it recongizes Orthodox churches as true churches but deficient. Do we care?
When interpretting scripture you do it 1) Literally or, 2) Figurately, in that order. You have to look at what's being said and see which category it falls into.
Anyone who is able to inspect the host that the catholic religion uses as their "eucharist" both before and after the Mass is said will find that the composition of the wafer has not changed. I know, I've done it. Therefore to say your interpretation is correct is in fact false.
Since this is the case, your argument holds no water. That being the case you have to look at your Bible passages as figuratively. And see you conveniently misinterpreted Jesus own words when He says "Do this in remembrance of me." He's not asking us to actually consume His body, he's telling us to do this supper to remember His sacrifice, just like the Israelites had to remember the Passover in remembrance of their delivery from bondage in Egypt.
Sorry dude but your view of the scriptures falls in line with the other misteachings and false doctrines the so-called "Holy Church of God" spews out on a daily basis.
It's too bad too because the catholic church will have it's heyday here soon and will be able to form it's one-world church. But I'm not worried because Jesus Christ will allow the Anti-christ to destroy her for her many sins.
~”So, would it be correct to say that the LDS believes that it posesses an apostolic succession which is “restored” (after a 1500 year hiatus) rather than “unbroken”?”~
That would be a reasonable interpretation of our beliefs.
~”Did these Italians admit to worshipping (in the sense of worshipping Christ) these things?”~
I can’t give a good answer to that; I was there to share my own religion, and consequently didn’t get into many deep discussions of Catholic dogma.
I do know that some, more predominantly the elderly, literally pray to saints. They’ll often have a picture of that saint in their home enshrined amongst candles, etc. In such cases, there is nary a picture of the Savior in sight.
As a result, I’m quite curious as to actual Catholic beliefs.
Mary as a deity? Sorry, that’s way off base.
I guess you suppose that the Pope, when he's speaking 'ex cathedra' is spouting his own personal opinion? Nothing could be further from the truth. When the Pope and the Cardinals, in conjunction with the Bishops of the world make a pronouncement, it is done after MUCH fasting and praying and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's precisely WHY there are Councils; so one man doesn't make decisions for the whole Church.
And the Church teaches that the Pope speaks infallibly ONLY in the instance I just described. It has only happened a few times in the history of the Church.
There is no situation, I was just friendly ribbing the Catholic system. I seriously didn’t know you had to have some sort of proof. We just sort of take it on faith in Protestant faith when somebody new comes to church unless they just really want to be baptized in that church. If I caused any offense at all I apologize.
Well, on this I disagree with the Catholic Pope, totally.
Hardly. maybe to you it is but not to many Catholics. Mary and some saints are indeed worshipped. Co-redemptress to some....granted that is probably a reflection of modern obsession with "Godesses" in general. However, folks may view Mary as they like as far as I'm concerned. She was a fine woman.
Prods do not worship Martin Luther or John Calvin or Knox.
Matthew:16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros: By definition a piece of rock), and upon this rock (Petra: By definition a massive rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus was not telling Peter he was going to be “The Rock” the church of Christ was going to be founded upon. Rather it was his faith that Jesus is the Christ, his faith, that Jesus was going to use to build the church. And I see that you conveniently (again) left off a key scripture because right after Peter’s confession of faith, as related from Matthew 16:22-23, this is found ”Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Jesus called Peter Satan! How can Peter be the rock the church is established upon if Jesus calls him Satan?!?
“Peter, shepherd my sheep.”
Come on man, if you’re going to quote scripture then at least do it correctly. That’s not what Jesus told Peter.
John 21:15-17 “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Where does it say that Peter is supposed to shepherd any sheep. It doesn't, he simply tells him to feed his sheep. The first word interpreted feed means to "graze, keep," the second worked used to interpret feed means to "supervise," and the last word feed is interpreted the same as the first, "to graze, keep, feed." So your interpretations are all wrong. I guess you also forgot these scriptures.
Galations 2:7-15 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
There are 3 facts established here:
#1 – Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. He never went to Rome.
#2 – Paul confronted Peter because of his error as show above. How can a great spiritual leader who leads a world-wide church who is supposed to be God’s Vicar on earth be wrong about something?
#3 – Paul went to Rome, he was the apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore Peter could have never founded the Catholic church. Matter of fact Peter’s grave was found about 20 years ago or so in Israel. So much for the Catholic church having his bones interred.
You try and argue the point for the Catholic church’s existence yet you tell half-truths and outright lies to prove it. This unholy institution could never be a house for God, it’s a, well, let God tell you.
Revelation 18:1 “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
All the great Reformation teachers and preachers all held the same belief that the Roman Catholic Church is prophesied in Revelation 17 & 18. But you notice that God said “Come out of her, my people” so that means there are those within the RCC that are God’s people but they worship in an idolatrous system. There is hope for people like you. Come out, and enjoy the life God has in store for you and accept true salvation, not the false hope the Roman Catholic church gives you.
Funny how its still your interpretation.
These are good questions, and, if I may, I'd like to explain what we believe.
Is this not worship?
No, it's not worship, which is to say, not the adoration which is due to the Supreme Being alone. It is honor, which we are permitted to give to human beings ("Honor thy father and thy mother," to give just one example) and it is, above all, a recognition that the whole Communion of Saints is involved in intercessory prayer based on being interdependent members of one Body, which is Christ.
(LDS members believe in intercessory prayer, do you not?)
"Is prayer to a saint a different act than worship of that saint?"
No, It is the same as asking your Mom or your bishop or your best friend to pray for you.
"Then what is the purpose of prayer to and reverence toward the saint?"
Honor to whom honor is due. And adoring, thanking, supplicating and praising God Almighty with these other precious believers who have on before us, who still love us and care for us, and who are so near to the heart of God.
"It seems to me that such figures would detract from the importance of Christ in the individual’s life."
Not at all. That would be like saying loving our neighbor detracts from the love of God. These saints are our forebears, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors. Death does not separate us from them. How could it? They, and we, are in Christ: and death cannot separate us from the love of Christ.
Lol. Sow discord? By mentioning someone has a different interpretation of so-called scripture.
And who would that ultimately serve?
The devil of course. Oooooooh I rebuke you. (holding a crucifix up to your nose) Lol.
Oh, no; no offense. Customary and ritual practices have their importance, but I believe that by intending to please our heavenly Father with a pure heart, we do please Him. In fact, the pure of heart, they see Him.
"He has regarded the lowliness of His handmaid... behold, all generations will call be Blessed.... He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His Name."
Thank you for your explanation.
~”(LDS members believe in intercessory prayer, do you not?)”~
No, we do not, at least not in the way I think you mean it. We do, as a matter of course, pray in the name of Jesus; but we always address Heavenly Father (these are, according to the unique LDS belief in the Godhead rather than the Trinity, two separate and distinct individuals).
~”No, It is the same as asking your Mom or your bishop or your best friend to pray for you.”~
That’s an interesting analogy; but why did so many Italian Catholics, in my experience, tend to -replace- Christ in their lives, to some extent, with their chosen saint? It was almost as if they felt unworthy to address God themselves, that they needed someone ‘better’ than they to speak to their Father in their behalf.
Due to my belief in a loving, caring, and very intimate God, this seems a rather strange concept to me - would not a caring Father delight to speak with His child, regardless of their own level of righteousness? I would tend to think so.
Am I accurate in my assessment? Why would a person not speak with God directly? Why the necessity of intercession?
I don’t think intercession is, strictly speaking, a necessity. It is, really, the same kind of thing as asking a friend or someone whom respect as a very “spiritual” person to pray for you. I thought of it that way LONG before I became a Catholic and before I ever asked Mary or any other saint to pray for me. In fact I could venture to guess the year. I’d say the fall of 1966.
Some years ago somebody published a survey of Lutheran laity. I sure don't remember the details, but a large proportion believed that good works were necessary to be saved. I don't blame that on Luther or on Lutheran pastors. What a group teaches and what is practiced or believed by many of its members are always different.
You left out the part where Peter denied his Lord three times. If that was the rock to be the foundation of a church, they were in trouble. Fortunately we know Christ is the Foundation. He is the cornerstone not Peter. These claims of apostolic succession carry little weight for me because I find no scripture making claims this was the way it was supposed to be. In fact I can’t find the word Pope in the Bible.. why is that?
I see. Next time you are confronted with actions/items from Catholics that seem to be worship of something other than God, ask them if they worship the Saints or Mary in the same sense that they worship Christ.
If they say that they don’t worship Mary/the Saints, ask yourself why they would lie to you about this if you don’t believe them. REALLY try to come up with reasons why this Catholic just lied to you. Pure meaness? Is there a super-secret cult thing going on? Fear of the Catholic Church? Fear of what the other Christians would think of them(hahaha)? If all the reasons you come up with for why this Catholic lied to you about their worshipping stuff that isn’t God seems to be kooky, you might have to reconsider that they lied to you at all.
If they look at you and say something like “Ahhh... I was waiting to be asked that!! Of course I worship the Saints and Mary—see, here’s how I make the sign of the Cross: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the Saints, Blessed Mother!!! Cool huh?”, do the Catholics a favour and tell the local priest that he’s got a “live one” one his hands.
ps. there’s nuthin’ wrong about bein’ curious!
Freegards
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.