Pope's comments irrelevant to non-Catholics (CNN Opine)

(CNN) -- Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.

For him to even suggest that only the Catholic Church can provide true salvation to believers in Christ shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.

Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Catholic.

Indeed i have substituted one set of dogmas and one authority for another - that of Rome’s for the Word of God. Unlike Catholics, my dearly held doctrines are not held because i place implicit trust in man, or agree my understanding cannot be correct or followed if it disagrees with theirs, rather i must allow the word of God to teach me it’s doctrine by the Spirit of God, and to substantiate whatever i have heard - from Rome or Protestants. Thus while i disagree with the former most substantially, i also disagree with the latter in some secondary things. However, without negating the need for teachers and qualified obedience to pastors, souls that seek to be like the noble Bereans - who even checked out the very apostles (Acts 17:11)- must disagree with Rome over her most principal doctrines, that of her Soteriology and it’s foundation, the perpetuated Petrine papacy. I would substantiate that here except i think they do not allow long posts.

A brief reply is here: peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html

May almighty God give you grace to seek Him.

I don't accept a dichotomy between Rome and "the Word of God." If one like Dr. Luther arrives at a point where he does reject Rome he is not as, Luther claimed, free but simply loose from certain restraints. But men like Luther who seek certainly at all costs always move from one authority to another. He thought he had found it in scholarship, which gave definite meaning to the text of Scripture. Not bishops but biblical scholars were the magisterium. The modern Protestant does not think this but believes that the meaning of the text is obvious to anyone--scholar or dunce-- who reads it. Yes, one should read the Bible prayerfully and hope that the Holy Spirit will help him discern its meaning. But almost always, it seems, we come up with nothing original. We accept what we have heard from this person or that which, after we put our personal stamp on it, we call it the truth. In short, we depend on other persons. The Catholic Church does NOT teach, although some Catholics may pretend to, that we have mathematical certainly, can have perfect knowledge. What we do have is that certainty that the Church is a society founded by Christ and that he will save us as members from the consequences of our imperfect knowledge.

There is indeed a vast and evident dichotomy, and I find it spiritually grievous that you seem to be convinced that one cannot discern truth 9or confirm what men teach) from the Scriptures alone, and that i must be some follower of Luther or whoever. But i honestly realize that until one is truly born again the Bible seems more or less a rather nebulous book.

When faced with a doctrine like the Divinity of Christ i examine it (and opposing views) myself in the light of Scripture, and let that convince me. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html.

While commentaries of proven faithful men are helpful, i do not not wholly trust them, but the Word of god must itself convince me.

Did Paul go around quoting various authorities for substantiation for what he taught? (Acts 17:2) “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,”

How do you think the Bereans were convinced that what the apostles taught? (Acts 17:11) “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

This, like miracles, is riskier if your goal is basically unity by passively acceptance, but it is Biblical and the way to Biblical unity.

The Scriptures they searched were probably the Septuigent, and what they discerned was that what they had been taught by the Apostles was consistent with that Scripture. In any case, since the only Scripture they had was what was held by the president of the Synagogue, we don’t have individuals doing the reading. Sola Scriptura is a Lutheran doctrine and before the age of moveable type would have been considered an absurdity. The new techbnology wrought a revolution in information, as much as the computer has. Luther and others seized upon it to promote new doctrines in the Vernacular. This brought Biblical scholarship within the reach of every printer’s devil. So thousands who like Shakespeare, had small Latin and Less Greek, were able to absorb and dispense the new notions of salvation. They often disagreed with Luther in detail, a fact that frustrated Luther, but they owed the popularity of these new doctrines if not the doctrines themselves to Luther.

I see. So in order to change the import of the passage away from collective/personal examination of preaching in the light of the word of God to one more like unto your construct, you would have had Holy Spirit render it something like, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who subjected their minds to the traditions of the [infallible] Pharisees, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily by allowing the President of the Sinagogue to explain it to them.” No wonder their reaction was so different!

It is obvious that you reject the obvious commenddation that we are to “prove all things”, as you promote the kind of unconditional submission to man that made the Crusades and In Inquisitions possible. Perhaps Benedict will soon put on the Tiara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Tiara) and the world wil be more compelled to bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of” - the Pope! (2 Cor 10:5).

I solemnly tell you the truth, that if a soul dies believing in the gospel of Rome, trusting in any way in it’s self-proclaimed powers, and or personal merit gained thereby (which most of it’s multitudes do), they will awake in judgment to heard the ominous sentence, “depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Mat 7:23).

to such the Scriptures exhort, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” (Acts 3:19)

I that this pope has no good will toward protestants at all. We are defective folks gathered in what are not really churches according to him.

Maybe JPII believed the same, but was smart enough to keep his mouth shut about it. But this guy is no JPII.

As far as I’m concerned, he’s the worst kind of hyper-denominationalist.

I see his statement as more of an attempt to bring wayward Catholics back into the fold. There are (liberal, V2) priests that believe there is no difference between being a Catholic versus not being one.

I think you are judging him unfairly when you say he has no good will towards Prots. I think he is trying to rein in his own sheep, which as you know, there are some troublesome and highly visible members.

We frequently read things as to be aimed at us, whereas sometimes/frequently they are not.

That is wishful thinking. Benedict is more old school, which declared,

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (1302), asserting “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” - “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” (http://www.lightministries.com/id525.htm). Very sadly however, both her official teachings and contemporary formal studies (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4)and prima faci evidence show the exact opposite is most typically the case.

Rome teaches works help merit salvation, “we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life..” - The Sixth Session DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION CHAPTER XVI.

And what it effectually coveys is even worse, as it is not a Catholicism that might bring souls to anxiously strive for their salvation, by which they might be salvifically enlightened to salvation by grace thru faith alone (which faith is not alone), but rather Catholicism fosters faith in itself (as well as one’s own works) so that even the most nominal Catholic feels he will one day (finally) enter God’s Heavenly City.

When a K of C club beer-guzzling Catholic sees the grand funerals given to liberal politicians (Ted and John will get theirs), it only reinforces this delusion. But if a man like Ted Kennedy got converted, and became a conservative Baptist, then Rome would probably send a special envoy to entice him back!

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.