Thanks, but the cat's been out of the bag for years now. You can get it direct from the home office now, instead of putting up with the lousy customer service and inflated prices provided by some franchisee.
Posted on 07/12/2007 2:43:36 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
After the Vatican's latest "clarification" - to the effect that Protestant religious communities do not even merit being described as churches - you cannot help but marvel at the tenacity of other denominations in pursuing talks with Rome on Christian unity. Especially since - let us not forget - those discussions were launched, back in the 1960s, largely at the prompting of Catholic leaders following the Second Vatican Council.
Is there any point in other Christians continuing to discuss unification with a church whose leadership goes out of its way to say that it is not just the sole custodian of eternal truth, but the only sure path to salvation from that hell the pope said recently is real?
The Vatican's document concedes the "Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [other, non-Catholic groups] as instruments of salvation". But that would seem to be considerably less than a cast-iron assurance for those who fret about one day hurtling towards the fiery pit.
Small wonder that several commentators were speculating that ecumenism was simply dead in the water. The most prosaic response to that is to point out that the Vatican's document - however tactless and unnecessary it may be considered by other religious leaders - does not actually say anything that has not been said in the past. It is essentially a restatement of the 2000 text, Dominus Iesus, which was issued by the same department when its boss was the present pope. Logically, therefore, if it was worth talking before yesterday's declaration it is worth talking still.
The second point, brought into particularly sharp focus in the latest document, is that not all non-Catholic Christians are Protestants. While dismissing the Lutherans' and Calvinists' communities as "non-churches" and its ministers as....
(Excerpt) Read more at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk ...
“While dismissing the Lutherans’ and Calvinists’ communities as “non-churches” and its ministers as effectively impostors, the Vatican’s doctrinal “ministry” reiterates the view that the Orthodox do have a church worthy of the name and a priesthood it feels administers valid sacraments”
Will the real non-churches please stand up?
The Catholic and Orthodox churches are two branches of one original limb. The protestant churches have broken away from the tree altogether. And churches that have a history of denouncing the Pope as the Whore of Babylon and the Antichrist don’t have much to be offended about.
bump
Thank you for that thoughtful analysis.
I don’t have some big Catholic ax to grind but that is the history of these schisms.
What is religious 'dialogue' anyway? Is there supposed to be some sort of 'median truth' that various denominations can reach? Either you have the truth in its entirety or you don't any truth at all, there isn't any 'middle ground' or 'degrees' with truth. It is pure, it is absolute. If non-Catholics don't believe the Pope has Biblical or God-given authority to rule over the Church of God, then they regard him and the RCC as fraudulent. So why would they care what the Pope says anyway, since they believe they have the truth and the CC doesn't? I think what really riles protestants about the RCC is that somewhere in their hearts they know they've left the truth.
Look here, we have the Treaty of Westphalia and at the moment the Pope seems to be violating at least the spirit of the treaty (signed by the Pope) and possibly even the letter, and you want to argue metaphysics!
First, let's throw in the lawyers.
Every church has its own “criteria” for being labeled a Christian, and it is a label we should all willing to die for. We all know the tares are still in the wheat field. I don’t care. If someone can state they believe in the salvation from eternal death offered by the One True God through the death and resurrection of His Son and confess He is equal with God, that’s good enough for me.
When the Vatican claims to be the sole custodian of eternal truth, what is the point of religious dialogue with it?
To come to that eternal truth.
-A8
Thanks, but the cat's been out of the bag for years now. You can get it direct from the home office now, instead of putting up with the lousy customer service and inflated prices provided by some franchisee.
Isn’t it curious how much attention non-Roman Catholics are paying to the Pope’s words? Why would this be the case unless those very same people place value in what he says?
No question that the bad Popes from the Dark Ages onwards had a lot to do with driving Luther et al to schism. Not to mention stuff like burning Jan Hus at the stake, etc. We RC’s have a lot to answer for.
But I’m still not apologizing for the Crusades. ;>)
Thank you for that.
If you don't know whose interpretation we should follow, then it doesn't do any good to wave the Bible around in the air.
-A8
I’ve lately been re-reading one of my favorite histories, entitled THE BAD POPES, about all the degenerate, satanist, homicidal horrors who’ve sat on the throne of Peter. Some of the earlier ones made Alexander VI (Borgia) look like a choirboy. But I look at it like this. The Church is a human institution, and humans are fallen creatures, and God works in mysterious ways.
Is there book or website that provides the Official Catholic Interpretation(r) of the Holy Scriptures, verse-by-verse? There must be one, because every time I quote the Bible I'm told that's only my interpretation of it. There must be a common, authorized Genuine Catholictm Study Bible or some such thing that all Catholics check "my private interpretation" against, to so easily dismiss it as wrong.
The problem here, in my personal experience, is that I've never had a Catholic provide for me a "this or that is the One Official Catholic Interpretation of the verse in question" answer ever. I'm beginning to think that such doesn't really exist. I'll go further than that, and say that this "that's your private interpetation" apologetic is a debating trick, a con game like Three-Card Monty, employed to keep opponents off-balance w/o ever really offering anything of substance in return.
As I said, if you don't know whose interpretation we should follow, then it doesn't do any good to wave the Bible around in the air. That is because there are so many competing interpretations. Here is one example, and here is another.
-A8
lol. Franchise? You mean protestant denomination? Does that include Mormons? How far out does the bible spin/translation have to be before it’s not Biblical anymore? I guess that’s up to each franchisee?
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.