Posted on 07/20/2007 8:52:53 AM PDT by Between the Lines
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Instead of taking offense at a recent Vatican statement reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, evangelicals should seize the chance to respond with equal candor that “any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church,” according to a prominent Southern Baptist leader.
The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog that he appreciated the document’s clarity in voicing a key distinction between Catholics and Protestants over papal authority.
He said those differences are often forgotten “in this era of confusion and theological laxity.”
“We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division,” Mohler wrote.
“The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church.
“This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.”
This month, the Vatican released a document restating the contention that the Roman Catholicism is the one, true path to salvation. Other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches, the document said, restating the views of a 2000 document.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict XVI headed before becoming pope, said it issued the new document because some contemporary theological interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical intent had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Our family friend, for many years a Catholic chaplain, said that one of the happiest embarrassments he had was all of the Protestant enlisted men converting to Catholicism!
When his fourth Baptist chaplain did (as they were exiting the chaplain corps - for otherwise, of course, they would HAVE to leave), one of the leading Protestant chaplains said to him, "Hey! Stop stealing our ministers!"
Not sure it was hyperdenominationalism . . . sounded more like people in multiple subdivided denominations realizing that Christ who prayed, "that all may be one," must have left behind one Church, and it probably was the one with Peter (and his successors) as its visible head and where, as in both John and Luke/Acts, the Mother of Jesus was a welcomed presence.
I think you are looking at theology, when you should be looking elsewhere. He says that we are defective to the degree that we aren’t even real churches. I’m personally convinced that AT BEST he sees us as 2nd or 3rd class Christians...dhimmitude, if you will, to reuse that concept.
Hyper-denominationalism exudes the insistence that one’s group is the only one or the only “real” one. The pope has that attitude in spades. I can think of other groups that try really hard to give the impression that they’ve arrived and that they wouldn’t be really surprised to discover they’re the only ones in heaven.
On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who realize the Kingdom is broader than their own way of doing the gospel. They are authentic in that they believe in Jesus the Christ as Lord, and they band together about a style or emphasis that works for them. They don’t think that means that others are rejected.
To repeat Jesus’ words to his own disciples: those who are not against us are for us.
See #102.
As a longtime chaplain, I think your friend overstates the case. There are those changing denominations all the time. All sides, by the way. There is a constant shuffling of folks.
My Greek testament was the closest to hand so I was reminded what the Greek for pearls is. It's probably too early for a Margarita, isn't it?
(Can you imagine? the thought makes me a tad queasy ...)
There's always the problem, isn't there, of people who are so sure that they know what we do and why that they can't ever find out what we do and why. I never know what to do about that.
I think our Protestant brethren would be amused to know that I was called a Fundamentalist last night by one of Sister Shehag's supporters.
And I KNEW I was on the right side when somebody claiming to be from the CIA gave a long address about how Bush lied and ruined the CIA and everything and then for his peroration told a big, glaring, steenkin' lie about Dante, to the effect that the hottest circle of Hell was reserved for the uncommitted.
Not only is that wrong so many ways that I get tongue-tied trying to express it, but it's an almost useless lie. The only reason to say it is to steal some authority for his own opinion and to look like the scholar he proves himself NOT to be.
Anyway, thanks. I mean it.
It’s regrettab;e that you continue to call Pope Benedict’s words as a “rejection” of other Christians. It is a characterization of his approach that isn’t correct and you persist in projecting it as such.
No amount of genuine discussion has deterred you from coming back to this charge of hyper-denominationalism.
Were you to meet with him face-to-face I wonder if you would persist in your charge-—even if he made the effort to engage in a real discussion of the matter with you.
It seems that the more that is posted to you to set it aright, the more you make your charge.
“I’m convinced that at best he sees us as 2nd or 3rd class
Christians”. You say you are convinced of how he sees other Christians, but your conviction may be in error all the while you present it as fact.
We can all fall to presuming or assuming, but that doesn’t make our assessment entirely accurate or authenticate it as someone else’s true position.
“Come. let us reason together” rings hollow in a situation like this.
That is right, in order to be a [particular] Church, it must have the Eucharist. But Protestants lack the Eucharist because they lack Apostolic succession.
I’m personally convinced that AT BEST he sees us as 2nd or 3rd class Christians...dhimmitude, if you will, to reuse that concept.
I don't know what it means to be a 2nd or 3rd class Christian. If a person has believed in Christ, but never been baptized, that person's spiritual condition is deficient. (Since Protestants are baptized, that is just a hypothetical example.) Likewise, if a person has been baptized, but never received the filling of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8:14-17), then that person's spiritual condition is deficient. Protestants are in that condition, because this filling of the Spirit comes through the sacrament of confirmation/chrismation, which Protestants don't have, again because they lack Apostolic succession (notice that Philip the deacon could not do it; the Apostles had to come to Samaria and do it). Likewise, if a person has been baptized, but never received the Body and Blood of Christ, then this person's spiritual condition is deficient. Protestantism, however, lacks Apostolic succession, and therefore lacks persons with the authority to transform bread and wine into the Body and Blood.
Hyper-denominationalism exudes the insistence that one’s group is the only one or the only “real” one.
Implicit in your criticism is an assumption that no existing institution is the one Christ founded. And implicit in that belief is the notion that either Christ did not found an institution, or if He did, the gates of hell prevailed against it. But since the first century the Catholic Church has held that Christ founded an institution (not merely some invisible abstract entity), and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
To repeat Jesus’ words to his own disciples: those who are not against us are for us.
That is true, and the Pope agrees with it. But to the extent that you reject Apostolic succession, and reject the Eucharist, and reject the other sacraments, you are against us. And we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
-A8
It is interesting to run your accurate relating of your church's position on this subject of the Spirit up alongside the bible's words: "Those who don't have the Spirit are none of His..." In saying that we don't have the Eucharist, the fundamentalist Catholic code is affirming that we don't have the Spirit. Of course, those without the Spirit can be called into question on everything. (And they will be. Again....dhimmitude at best.) In short, you have demonstrated with your lines the exact point I was making. It is a fact that when fundamentalist Catholicism leads -- and it is now in the lead under this pope -- it engages in the rankest form of hyper-denominationalism. Those of us who've studied theology know the code words that hyper-denominationalists use. What they mean is that those not like them "aren't really" or "perhaps might be" or "could be in the end" authentic Christians. You all don't see that you do it even in your own posts. Pope Benedict Ratzinger is an anti-protestant, fundamentalistic, hyper-denominational Catholic pope and a throwback to the middle ages. He certainly is no JPII.
It is interesting to run your accurate relating of your church's position on this subject of the Spirit up alongside the bible's words: "Those who don't have the Spirit are none of His..." In saying that we don't have the Eucharist, the fundamentalist Catholic code is affirming that we don't have the Spirit. Of course, those without the Spirit can be called into question on everything. (And they will be. Again....dhimmitude at best.)
In short, you have demonstrated with your lines the exact point I was making. It is a fact that when fundamentalist Catholicism leads -- and it is now in the lead under this pope -- it engages in the rankest form of hyper-denominationalism.
Those of us who've studied theology know the code words that hyper-denominationalists use. What they mean is that those not like them "aren't really" or "perhaps might be" or "could be in the end" authentic Christians.
You all don't see that you do it even in your own posts. Pope Benedict Ratzinger is an anti-protestant, fundamentalistic, hyper-denominational Catholic pope and a throwback to the middle ages. He certainly is no JPII.
He certainly is no JPII.
JPII signed Dominus Iesus in 2000. It says exactly the same thing that the recent CDF document says. If you think that JPII believed something different about these matters than does B16, you're deluding yourself.
What is very clear to me is your hostility to the very idea that Christ founded an institution. That notion rubs against your gnosticism. You want the Church (the Body of Christ) to be invisible and spiritual, not incarnate and tangible.
-A8
The whole verse goes lik this, and if we assume Paul is talking about hair alone then he’d actually be commanding men to pray BALD.
1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
As I said in a previous post, JPII was smart enough to keep his mouth shut on such divisive things. Ratzinger is no JPII.
Theological fine-tuning is always a necessary process, so in speaking of the eucharist and the legitimacy (from the fundamentalist Catholic perspective) of those who do not have it, it is necessary to understand that Catholicism does insist that the eucharist is necessary for salvation.
The logic is always:
1. The only one to transform the bread & cup into the real body and blood is a priest in RCC acknowledged apostolic lineage.
2. The only true eucharist is one which has been so transformed.
3. The only means to MAINTAIN life and avoid spiritual ruin is to receive the real eucharist. (My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life....)
In short, the argument is made that protestant ministers are not in RCC recognized apostolic lineage, are not true ministers, that protestant orders are not true orders, and that protestant churches are not true churches.
Such “untrue” sources cannot perform the eucharistic ministry, and therefore, IF there were any life of salvation in the first place, it cannot be sustained without the “real” eucharist that only a priest can perform.
It is interesting to watch the games that RCC apologists play with this, but they never address fundamentalistic Catholicism. Ratzinger is a fundamentalistic, hyper-denominationalist Catholic. He is anti-protestant.
Apparently, to the Apostle Paul, head coverings (hats, scarves?) somehow indicated acknowledgement of male authority. Covered women in the middle east certainly indicate expression by these women that they are not bucking the system. The unhatted men do indicate their greater status in that system. To those men, I can see how a refusal to accept the garb of womanhood might be viewed as some proclamation of rebellion against God.
What I can’t see, though, is the kernal of truth in all of this from a Christian perspective. I’ve always taken it as a cultural comment by Paul that is similar to his “greet one another with a holy kiss.”
A military career and military history, does teach me that long hair is a danger to a warrior. (See Absalom)
Look at what it says at the end of Dominus Iesus: "The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication."
How is that keeping "his mouth shut"?
from the fundamentalist Catholic perspective
There is no such thing as "fundamentalist Catholic". There is just Catholic doctrine, the doctrine taught by the Holy See. There are not two sets of doctrine: one for some group of fundamentalist Catholics, and another for the 'non-fundamentalist' Catholics. There is just Catholic doctrine, and those who believe it, and those who don't.
The only means to MAINTAIN life and avoid spiritual ruin is to receive the real eucharist.
Once again, you are showing yourself to be uncareful, jumping to false conclusions, and not citing official Catholic doctrine. The Church does not teach or believe that those who do not receive the Eucharist cannot maintain life or cannot avoid spiritual ruin. That is simply false. If you wish to support your accusation, then you need to find it in some official Catholic text, not pasting on your own interpretation of Scripture (John 6) as a way of smearing Catholic doctrine.
He is anti-protestant.
Protestants, by the very origin of the term are protesting the Catholic Church. So by saying that B16 is anti-Protestant, you are saying that he is anti-[anti-Catholic]; in other words, you are saying that he is Catholic. That is true. He is Catholic. But it shouldn't be a surprise that the Pope is Catholic.
-A8
You left out 11:15 where he says her long hair is her cover. Like I said, he probably had one too many that night.
I am saying that he is fundamentalist Catholic. Ultimately, fundamentalist Catholics think they’re the only “real” ones around.
Fundamentalist Catholicism pretends things about Christian unity that they don’t really mean. A pope can declare himself fully behind ecumenism, but one must read between the lines. What he is really saying is: “On my terms.”
What are those terms?....that No other church is real
Hyper-denominationistic, Catholic fundamentalism says that Christian unity means everyone all changing to what I Catholicism is. Fundamentalist Catholicism believes that its past is lilly white, and everyone else is stained.
I could go on, but I see through it all. I’ll post an article that addresses Catholicism’s phony outreach regarding Christian unity.
IOW, if I run from a church which claims it's own doctrines (tradition) are equal to Scripture and instead trust Scripture Alone it's okay with our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Catholic is what the Holy See says it is. Or do you think that you have more authority than the Holy See to define what Catholic is?
Fundamentalist Catholicism pretends things about Christian unity that they don’t really mean. A pope can declare himself fully behind ecumenism, but one must read between the lines. What he is really saying is: “On my terms.”
There is no pretending. The Catholic Church wants full, visible unity. It has never said otherwise. Read JPII's (1995) encyclical Ut Unum Sint.
Hyper-denominationistic, Catholic fundamentalism says that Christian unity means everyone all changing to what I Catholicism is.
That's what the Church has always believed.
Fundamentalist Catholicism believes that its past is lilly white, and everyone else is stained.
That is simply false. I know not a single Catholic who believes that the Church's past is "lilly white".
-A8
Differences are OK.
Jesus is the one who removes candlesticks when churches leave their first love. (Rev 2)
It's always good to start the day with a chuckle. There have always been numerous Christian churches, some of which submitted to domination by Rome and others that did not.
Kind of hard to be "exclusive" when you're busy multiplying.
It's not as organized as a centralized hierarchical command structure, but it will do. :-0
Pure sophistry it now is clear....
Pretending to accept differences is hardly the same as accepting differences. To now say, "we always meant that y'all are 'sposed to recognize how wrong you are and how right we are." is simply dissimulation.
We now know that it's just more of the same -- hyper-denominationalistic, Catholic fundamentalism. It's like the Bush pretense on the religion of peace, Islam. We all know that Islam is doing their damndest to spread the message of Islamic fundamentalism.
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.