Posted on 07/11/2007 10:25:12 AM PDT by markomalley
Geneva/Moscow, Jul. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Leading Protestant figures have criticized the new Vatican document affirming the central role of the Catholic Church, but the Russian Orthodox Church has welcomed the document as an "honest" statement that "shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are."
Rev. Setri Nyomi, the general secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, protested the Vatican statement in a letter to Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Rev. Nyomi said that the new Vatican statement, which says that Protestant groups are not "churches" in the proper sense, "makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with Reformed family and other families of the Church."
The World Council of Churches (WCC) also expressed disagreement with the Vatican. In its own statement addressing the role of the Catholic Church, the WCC argued that the term "catholic" should be understood to mean "universal." In that sense, the WCC argued, "Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it."
The Russian Orthodox Church, however, welcomed the Vatican satement. "For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," said Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the leading ecumenical official of the Moscow patriarchate.
Metropolitan Kirill observed that he saw "nothing new" doctrinally in the statement released on july 10 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He argued that "everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," since the Orthodox Church has preserved apostolic succession.
The Vatican document acknowledged that the Orthodox churches are sister churches with valid sacraments, but added that in the Orthodox world, "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 realized in history."
Care to dance in a new scene?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1863612/posts?page=209
As you can see, we’ve already begun the discussion, but I think this is something that needs to be brought to light as often as need be.
The truth of the matter is- it is refreshing to see the Vatican taking a stand on it’s principles.
This Protestant applauds their self-honesty.
I disagree with the message, of course, but at least they are fighting by arguing for their faith and their reasoning for it.
If they couldn’t or didn’t believe enough to fight, THEN it would be a problem.
I cannot believe how many posting’s we’ve had about this. What? You mean us Protestants don’t like it when the leader of a billion Christians tells our brothers in Christ we’re not really Christian? Wow. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
I would love to but, as I posted in my last reply, I am out of time. God bless you!
Improper use of punctuation! Posts can’t own anything! Penalty! Minus 5 points from Gryffindor!
When you discuss this one, please do so with the proper quote from the Vatican:
“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.”
It’s not nearly as exclusive and divisive as the press is trying to make it.
The legendary [atleast, what used to be] Protestant work ethic is what makes most countries with a Protestant majority, a developed one. The first modern countries to attain a developed status were those with such a majority. Only then did the neighbours of these states follow.
However hard this may be for many to swallow, it is plainly visible.
If anyone can convince me that this observation of mine is faulty, I will gladly show patience to listen.
Personally, I am an agnostic, but I cannot deny what I can observe.
Well, you’re correct.
Posting’s what? Posting’s cookie? His bike?
Lemme get them Cool Points off ya. ::stick out hand::
Will do, sir.
Best Regards.
Please see my last post from the previous thread.
I would call them more like fellowships or prayer groups than true churches.
Care to move the conversation over here? Fresher thread.
The way I look at it is that they are part of the Church Militant, as long as they are validly baptized. Since the reality of the situation is that there is One Church Universal, they are simply members or they aren't Christians. Period.
However, as you allude, none of their particular groups have a validly consecrted bishop. The particular communities with whom they worship are thus not part of any "particular Church." They are in schismatic groups that have institutionalized heretical beliefs for so long that they no longer recognize truth when they see it (well, some do, and are promptly received into the Church).
So I agree with what you're saying. But the real scandal would come if they could read the implications of the documents...since One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is an ontological reality...if they are baptized, they, in some fashion, must be a member of that Church...not through declaration, fellowship, or agreement...but rather as an ontological necessity!
This was exactly what I was debating earlier.
Who is to say who is “validly baptized”?
That statement is wholey of the Catholic Doctrine, and not of the Bible itself.
Matt 28:19
That statement is wholey of the Catholic Doctrine, and not of the Bible itself.
Matt 28:19 is the Catholic doctrine.
And no, I'd rather not give up flush toilets, ruining water and modern medicine ;)
I am looking specifically at material wealth. Balanced, sustainable material wealth, at that. A society without psychological fulfillment cannot attain and sustain material wealth, in the modern sense. When you look at that, the countries I mentioned rule the roost. Atleast, for now.
That's my point, Christians aren't supposed to be all that concerned with ruling anything, were here to be disciples of Christ, who's kingdom is not of this world.
Atleast, for now.
Thats the problem with valuing the transient isn't it, by its very nature it ebbs and flows.
And Matthew 28:19 dictates where in its passge (or even context) that any one or band of men are the sole heirs of th ability to bless other men?
The passage merely states that any who answer the call to Christ may baptize. It need not be a “selected” person to make it valid.
I have never been baptized by a Catholic priest, but I assure you, even I have the authority to bring another into His Fold. Was my baptism “illegitimate” because it wasn’t Catholic? Was my personal spiritual re-birth and acceptance of Christ into my heart a farce?
Are you saying I worship a false god?
Now, let me ask again- WHO is it that says WHO is “validly baptized”?
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.