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.
The rock and foundation of my church is Jesus Christ. How about yours?
But I think it's easy to watch and enjoy the fireworks without caring much about the Holy Spirit which made the saints holy through the mercy of Christ.
So I can imagine a LOT of Italians whose religious life begins and ends with dancing in the streets. And compared to them, since I really do believe in the efficacy of the intercession of holy men and women, Italians whose devotions at present are dominated by appeals to Mary would be, at the least, opening themselves to some Divine intervention which might tear up their own personal pea-patch some day.
Also, sometimes it easier to talk about the beauty of the sunset than about the beauty of Him who made it. Or even better, the little acts of intimacy with the boss-lady, the peck on the cheek or pat on the arm, these are done easily and there's no shame and not much effort in them. But they sort of keep things in motion so that when we do some serious loving (No, I don't mean THAT! I mean, say, talking about the things ... that are hard to talk about) we already have some, ah, momentum.
But I hope no one would think, because they see only the peck on the cheek, that our relationship goes no further.
At our parish we have 5 Sunday masses, and, Mon-Fri, we pray the Rosary in the late afternoon. Some people I see only at the Rosary. But I know some of them also pray the daily office and go to one of the two daily Masses AND go to Mass on Sunday -- but I don't necessarily see them.
My alleged point is that there MAY be more than what is easily seen to the piety of at least some Roaming Calflicks.
I must say, you have made it as easy as possible to talk with you about our bizarre cultic behavior. Thanks for your courtesy and interest.
Because she is the approachable, mother figure goddess and is more likely to care about her children.
What a well-reasoned argument.
How arrogant you folks have become, thinking your church is the ONLY church.
Christ founded one Church. One might think it an arrogant position to believe that Christ was a liar and that there are many churches, despite His teaching.
You will be shocked to see us protestants in the same line as your are in heaven. Cheez.
Nothing the Pope wrote even implies that Protestants are cut off from salvation.
But you also believe that since she is Jesus' mother, He must do whatever she asks, therefore if you ask her to ask Jesus, you are really asking her.
Indeed they are. Through Baptism they are publicly sealed to Christ's Church.
Only those who have asked the Lord Jesus Christ into their lives to be their Lord and Saviour are Christians.
That's a narrower definition than the actual one.
Baptism is important but it doesn’t save anyone.
It saves some - but it is not a guarantee of salvation.
We’re to believe and be baptized. Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is our salvation.
No, only Christ's grace brings salvation. As Scripture informs us, even demons believe.
Let's do this by the numbers:
(1)Mary is, we say, conceived without sin. We think this is by God's grace, and by God's grace she unreservedly gave herself to do God's will.
(2)So while she could be ignorant of God's will, we do not imagine her choosing against God's will. IF she were to ask Jesus to do some particular thing, therefore, the thing she asked would be in accordance with God's will.
(3)Now Jesus is God. So, if a thing is in accordance with God's will, it is in accordance with His will.
(3) While the role of prayer in forming or directing or assisting God's will is, as far as I'm concerned, totally incomprehensible, we do know that we are in many places directed to ask God for this and that. But it is vexed and difficult, despite frequent OT language about God repenting and regretting and whatnot, to think that prayer would change God's mind or suggest to Him something He had not thought of already.
(4)So to think of Jesus hanging out or doing whatever it is He does in heaven and along comes Mary and says," Hey, could you give so-and-so a winning Lottery ticket?" and He says either, "Hey! Good idea!" or "Rats and mice, Mom, I really don't want to do that," is, well, silly.
Consequently, to think, simply and literally that "He must do whatever she asks," is simplistic.
For some mysterious reason(s) God likes to be asked. So we ask. And we ask Mary (and other saints) to join us in asking. WE have a special confidence in Mary because she, we think, has an intimate relationship with her Son. But we don't think that He is tied to her apron strings or that she can or wants to boss Him around.
If I am brief to the point of curtness, it is not to be hostile but because I should have left about 10 minutes ago.
This is an enjoyable experience because we're both listening to each other. Thank you for that. Plus, I never knew a whole lot about the LDS Church, so I appreciate the opportunity to learn.
"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."
Well, since you refer to specific people you knew, you might get a better answer from them than from me. Ask them, if you are still in touch. If I may hazard a guess, I think they'd tell you that nothing could replace Christ in their lives.
I have observed that Catholics have a more robust idea of the "Body of Christ" than Protestants (and Mormons) seem to have. We experience ourselves as being in constant living contact with people who really are members (shall we say, cells, tissues, organs, systems) of one Body, who really can say with Paul, "I live; yet, not 'I', but Christ lives in me."
Do not imagine that those saints we ask to intercede for us, are "dead." They are still living members of the Body of Christ, who are in Christ and Christ is in them. We are intimate with them and with Christ. There is no sense of distance there.
"Due to my belief in a loving, caring, and very intimate God... would not a caring Father delight to speak with His child, regardless of their own level of righteousness? "
Amen to that!
"Why the necessity of intercession?"
Because we love one other.
This thread turned out better than expected. The last one about the Mass being said in Latin got nasty and was locked down by the mods (and rightly so).
Good morning, wardaddy!
Thank for your gracious response. The way I see it, anybody who loves Jesus is a brother or sister, really, closer than blood kin.
In truth the big disunity among Christians woulds all Christian believers, be they Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. This disunity is no help in our need to stand up to the Islamic threat and also the need to get the good news of the Gospel of Jesus out. The hope is that this statement by the Pope will be the begining of the need to heal this wounds of division.
Not much.
By the way, apology accepted for the sack of Constantinople. A few years late, but hey--better than never! Boy were there quite a number of Catholic discussion boards agonizing over that--sheesh!
Venerable John Paul II issued the apology as a gracious act of reconciliation. The historical reality of the taking of Constantinople, as opposed to Orthodox myths, leaves no offense that actually required an apology.
Facts:
(1) The force which took Constantinople was composed in large part of Orthodox Christians seeking dynastic revenge against Alexios.
(2) The two Latin leaders who commanded the Western forces were forbidden by John Paul II's predecessor Innocent III from taking up arms in the first place. One of them was an excommunicant before the the assault.
(3) After the assault the Pope personally communicated to them his anger and their criminal status and they ignored him.
(4) The largest contingent among the Western forces were Venetians. 22 years before the taking of Constantinople, the Orthodox of Constantinople conducted a pogrom against the community of Venetian merchants in the city, murdering most of them, seizing their property and desecrating Latin churches. many of the Venetians fighting in 1204 were settling personal scores - avenging their murdered relatives.
In sum, the taking of Constantinople was forbidden by the Pope in advance, undertaken by men who broke communion with the Catholic Church, carried out with the cooperation of Orthodox Christians and condemned roundly and punished by Pope Innocent III.
Perhaps the pope should sit down and chat with the number of former Catholics who have converted to Orthodoxy.
That exchange flows both ways, as it has in all ages.
And yet the number of Orthodox communicants in America does not grow much above replacement level.
No wonder the Catholic church is so supportive of illegals here in the US, gotta boost those attendance numbers somehow! Don't know about the Orthodox position, but if they support illegals, there will be Hell to pay!
That's an interesting take on the Gospel, to put it mildly.
(2)So while she could be ignorant of God's will, we do not imagine her choosing against God's will. IF she were to ask Jesus to do some particular thing, therefore, the thing she asked would be in accordance with God's will.
(3)Now Jesus is God. So, if a thing is in accordance with God's will, it is in accordance with His will.
(3) While the role of prayer in forming or directing or assisting God's will is, as far as I'm concerned, totally incomprehensible, we do know that we are in many places directed to ask God for this and that. But it is vexed and difficult, despite frequent OT language about God repenting and regretting and whatnot, to think that prayer would change God's mind or suggest to Him something He had not thought of already.
(4)So to think of Jesus hanging out or doing whatever it is He does in heaven and along comes Mary and says," Hey, could you give so-and-so a winning Lottery ticket?" and He says either, "Hey! Good idea!" or "Rats and mice, Mom, I really don't want to do that," is, well, silly.
This all boils down to what I said. There is no need to ask God for anything because if Mary approves than it's a done deal. But Mary, being the sympathetic mother figure, is more likely to show mercy than the Father figure. This is evident in the psalms, Fathers are just harder to please than mothers.
The sad truth is that you said a mouthful when you said "God likes to be asked" then, with utmost irony, you explain why you ask Mary rather than God. Why not pray the way the bible says to pray?
...You said it.
I had a manufacturing engineer working for me (back in Indiana) who was a conservative Campbellian Church of Christ fundamentalist. He set out to save my soul since I was going to hell because I followed the antichrist in Rome, and was a member of satan’s Roman church.
I’ve run into quite a few, including Southern Baptists and Pentecostals (AofG, most of them) that held the same, vigourous belief.
I do see your point about a “Catholic culture.” I would suppose that at least 90% of Italian Catholics are the kind that go to Mass at Easter and Christmas, and claim to be faithful Catholics. I suppose you’d see the same sort of rote devotion were any religion to comprise that level of saturation in a culture. Italians do have “Catholic” written on their birth certificates by default, after all.
Still, the observant were some of the most fantastic people I’ve met. There were a number of families I know who ascribed to the “neo-catuchismo,” and they were solid, solid people.
~”I must say, you have made it as easy as possible to talk with you about our bizarre cultic behavior.”~
You ain’t got nothin’ on me for alleged “bizarre cultic behavior”, pal. You should see what is whispered about our temples.
Frankly, I feel more a kindred spirit with Catholics than with any other denomination. It seems that Mormons and Catholics are the two most acceptable groups for other Christians to trash. Perhaps because we are the only two groups with feasible claims on actual authority? Maybe because we’re generally satisfied with what we have, and we just don’t seem interested in their message? Beats me.
It seems like history is starting to repeat itself. Just like the dark/middle ages when Islam first burst out unto the world scene, Christians fighting among themselves. But remember this, even the Muslims have their fights (example: sunni vs. shia ).
Thanks for the explanations. I think I’m beginning to understand the Catholic perspective on the topic.
If you have further questions about the LDS Church, I’m happy to address them.
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.