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.
Also what should be brought up are those Catholics who left the Latin rite and have decided to become a part of anyone of the Eastern rite parishes that do have the same type of worship as the Orthodox churches but still are united with the Vatican. I have posted to a few who did make the switch. In other have your cake and eat it too.
We also both have a complete doctrine written out and set down for all to see. Concrete, rather than the mobile set of beliefs that many Christians have.
I think that our emphasis on works as well as saving grace turns a lot of people off, too. Attending church EVERY Sunday as well as working in the parish and in our service groups appears to be a an order of magnitude higher than a lot of my non Catholic friends are willing to do.
The main exception to that appears to be a couple of the new local growing evangelical non denominational churches. I’ll be interested to see how long this fervour lasts, though. I’ve seen a couple back in Indiana start up like supernovas and then fizzle as enthusiasm waned over the years.
Do you ever ask friends and loved ones to pray for you? If so, aren't you doing the same thing as the Roman Cathoics? If not, well never mind then...
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”[7].
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
Third Question: Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”[11].
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].
“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
I think the main problem that most if not all Protestants
and Evangelicals have with Catholicisms is the obvious
Un-Bibical worship of Mary. Most regular Catholics
will be quick to tell you they don’t worship Mary
but it sure doesn’t appear that way to others.
Having said that, there are saved and lost people
in every denomination.
The goal of religion is to get to Heaven. Jesus has plainly
stated in John 14 that he is the ONLY way to get there.
You will be surprised who you see in Heaven and who you don’t.
Funny, it was the first thing I heard 30 years ago at a local Baptist church - pastor considered Catholicism a “cult”. I’ve heard it from at least three pastors over the last 30 years. Ironically, my non-Catholic spouse didn’t even hear it.
As another poster said earlier, though, the question is, Have I accepted Christ? Denomination is irrelevant.
Have a good day!
Indeed, but right now it’s our infighting and refusal to take the Muzzies seriously that is dangerous - their inter-Muzzie fights are just a distraction.
Good story. Thanks for sharing.
It is apparent to me that the "church" wants to claim the power to grant salvation unto itself. It justifies this by claiming an "apostolic succession" to Peter.
Scripture states time, and time again that salvation is granted through faith in Christ and acceptance of His sacrifice on the cross for our sins. It is grace that saves us from Hell, not the "church" as an institution.
I am amazed at this blatant power grab by men who attempt to usurp the holy throne of God Himself. It is just unbelievable.
Too late. They already have their talking points and are spewing them all over the threads today. I don't think a lot of the posters even care what the Pope said, they just want to get in their anti-Catholic barbs.
I get the feeling here that many Catholics feel persecuted like Jews do.
Thank you for your post about the 1204 sack of Constantinople. I didn’t know all that. Still horrible, but looks like a mix of miscreants doing their horrible best, and not a case of papal imperialism.
BTW, different topic but not so different. I saw somewhere on the Internet an icon of two martyrs, one an Orthodox believer killed by Catholics (Peter the Aleut) and the other, a Catholic priest of, I think, Galicia, killed by the Orthodox. The icon shows them shaking hands while both of them together are holding one Cross.
Gosh, I wish I knew where I could find it!
There are some folks that have thin skin, and there are those of us with sharp elbows. :)
I don’t normally mind discussion or even mild ranting, although I certainly have gotten irritated with a couple of people. Persecuted? Naw. When you strongly and visibly stand for something, there are always the hecklers.
thanks ma’am
You're a nice person but it is not accurate to categorize Protestants this way.
I don't have the time today to go into this. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, if you don't mind. You can FReemail me. I don't know many Protestants (outside of some Anglicans and some Lutherans) who would characterize their worship service as a sacrificial offering, nay THE Sacrifical Offering.
Most cite the Bible to say that the time for offering sacrifices is over, finished, kaput. The idea that Jesus is continually, in our point in space and time, re-presented to the Father in an act of sacrificial worship that becomes a fountain, no THE fountain of grace entering the world is anthema to most Protestants I encounter, at least here on FR.
The Catholic church has regularly tried to justify the existence of their doctrinal stances from biblical verses that in no way apply to their beliefs. But that’s where they rely more on church teachings than they do the holy scriptures.
If what you say is true of catholic beliefs, then where is that supported in the Bible? It’s not, and that’s where church teachings contradict or “supercede” what’s in the scriptures. The problem is, the Bible can’t be superceded, changed, take away from. Jesus pronounces a curse upon anyone who does.
We’ve been through this on various threads; the Bible is the creation of the Church (The Holy Spirit acting through the men of the Church). The Church and the Church alone selected what was to be included.
And, with the New Testament not assembled for 300 years, the only teaching authority was the Church. That authority did not lapse upon the creation of the Bible. The Bible was produced by the Church; human beings reading the Bible produced other churches.
And, I’ll bet that your Bible is not complete. It probably has been abridged. If you believe that Jesus curses those who would take away from the Bible, do you believe that you share that curse?
Jesus cursed Martin Luther?
That IS a headline.
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.