Posted on 07/10/2007 6:55:28 PM PDT by indcons
Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.
Protestant leaders immediately responded by saying the claims were offensive and would hurt efforts to promote ecumenism.
Roman Catholic- Anglican relations are already strained over the Church of England's plans to ordain homosexuals and women as bishops. The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.
It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.
As a result, it went on, Protestant churches have "no sacramental priesthood", effectively reaffirming the controversial Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless.
The document claimed the Catholic church was the "one true church of Christ".
Pope Benedict's commitment to the hardline teaching comes days after he reinstated the Mass in Latin, which was sidelined in the 1960s in an attempt to modernise.
The timing of the announcement fuelled speculation that the pontiff - regarded as an arch-conservative before his election in 2005 - is finally beginning to impose his views on the Catholic Church.
The Vatican said it was restating the position set out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000 in a document called Domine Jesus because theologians continued to misunderstand it.
At that time, Anglican leaders from around the world made their anger felt by snubbing an invitation to join Pope John Paul II as he proclaimed St Thomas More the patron saint of politicians.
Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.
He said the pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.
Hey "frog" you understand any of this? I sure got lost. LOL
You are certainly entitled to not recognize my Christianity. I hope you can understand that I will never accept your view. Doing so would be to deny the witness I have received from the Holy Ghost. I feel as I’m writing this that you will want to attack my position and that is certainly your right. I know that when you do it is through your sincere efforts to expose what you feel is a threat to real Christianity. Please be mindful that those who are reading this may be on the fence over their faith. I’m asking you to please be kind to those you question. That seems to me to be what Christ would have us do.
LOL
You see, the author’s dilemma is that to say “brother” and “sisters” don’t mean blood relations, would throw into question the usage of the word “son”. You have to be consistent in the way you use terms in the same sentence, so the author just ignores this passage that contradicts his preconceived ideas.
John 19:25, “ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Mark 15:40, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;”
Matthew 27:55, “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children”.
Notice John says there was: Jesus mother; his mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Cleophas; and Mary Magdalene.
Mark says there was: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses; and Salome.
Matthew says there was; Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James and Joses; and the mother of Zebedee’s children”.
From piecing this together by comparing scripture with scripture we get these women at the cross:
His mother, Mary,
His mother’s sister, Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children (Jesus’ cousins),
Mary Magdalene,
Mary the wife of Cleopas and the mother of James the less and of Joses.
So it stands to reason why Jesus entrusted His mother to His cousin, since by Mark 6:3, none of His brothers were there at the cross.
To say one can’t have many named John, Jame, Simon and Jude in the family or entourage looks silly when, as you see here, the most prominent women followers are named Mary.
Bravo, well said. I would never dream of telling anyone that they weren't a Christian because they don't believe the way we do. They believe in Christ and follow His teachings and that is the definition of being a Christian.
That is true, but your entire cut-and-paste argument was designed to REFUTE the scriptures. The scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters. Catholic tradition claims that Mary could not have had other children so an elaborate method of twisted hermenutics had to be employed to disprove what the scriptures say.
You cut and pasted those twisted arguments because there is simply no way you could have come up with them on your own.
So often I see the "official" arguments of the Catholic Church cut and pasted here when the poster runs out of their own ammunition. The fact is that you (personally) don't have any of your own arguments so you rely on the arguments of others. That's fine. Grasping at straws is fair game here.
“I sure got lost. LOL”
That’s what the whole argument on the perpetual virginity of Mary boils down to. Getting lost in the moveable definition of words rather than taking them at their face value.
You mean that we can't understand what Jesus taught by reading the red letter verses = what Jesus, Himself, taught?
I, for one, think Jesus was pretty clear - and I have little trouble understanding Him - and since He said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me." John 14:6, I'll look to His words over others interpretation of His words. He speaks pretty clearly, in my estimation.
Jesus said it.
I believe Him
Look harder, and honestly.
Do Jews worship the same God as Christians?
I see...what do you say to all those Muslims who believe they are worshiping the God of Abraham? I mean to their face, not on the internet?
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate, and be specific, use the catechism as your source.
Check out where Maine fits in the scheme of things. Pretty soon digging potatoes will be back in style.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/10/washington-virginia-utah-biz-cz_kb_0711bizstates-table.html
From post #348
“Well then, during the sacrifice of the Mass is not the wafer supposed to become the flesh of Jesus and the wine supposed to become the blood of Jesus? Aren’t you required to participate in this sacrifice on a routine basis for your salvation?”
bump with no comment.
Au contraire. You were speaking for them. You claimed that they worshiped the same God you worship. They would deny it because their God does not have a son. They worship a different God, and to make the argument that a Christian worships Allah is the worst kind of blasphemy.
I’ll keep praying for their conversion.
Maybe you should pray for insight.
You raise an interesting point. However, decision making was done as a group and not arbitrarily by one person.
Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men...
The arbitrary monobishophoric system emerged after the Apostolic Era ended.
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.