Posted on 07/11/2008 5:54:33 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Is that not, however, to make the reading of the Bible a kind of “works “ or as we say a kind of sacrament? Pouring over the Bible make you very much like like some Talmudic scholar, for there is no central authority to tell a Jew what he must believe. The more radical Reformers dissented from Luther’s emphasis on the Bible, saying we really don’t NEED the Bible, that the Holy Spirit will directly illuminate our souls. This was, of course, the way to avoid reliance on any human authority.
Oh by the way, Henry did in fact petition the bishop in Rome for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine on the basis that she was unable to bare him children.
The bishop refused to grant the King an annulment due to personal reasons. It was then Henry decided he did not need the permission of men to dissolve his marriage.
The history of the C of E hierarcy cannot be traced back before the Roman mission at the end of the 6th Century. And Henry’s petition for annulment was based on the fact that Catherine was the wife of his elder brother, that therefore there was an impediment to their marriage.
He had a child, but it was a girl , Mary, and he was persuaded that he needed a make heir—which he probably did—to sustain his dynasty, which was only 45-years old at the time. My view is that he was driven less by lust than political reasons. The English crown had never rested easily on the head of any English king, since Edward III anyway, and Mary didn’t have the nerve to rule alone, as Elizabeth was able to do. Unable to get an annulment, because
Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, who held the pope virtual prisoner, Henry broke with the pope. he solidified his family’s grip by confiscating the lands of the Church and distributing them among the nobility, the gentry, and the merchants of London. Not a nice man, but an effective if tyranical ruler.
Elizabeth in herited his political savy but was a much cooler character. Plus she saw what had happened to Mary. Anyway, this is how I see the matter.
Actually we can go back to the 4th cent. when three British bishops, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius attended the Council of Arles in Gaul in 314. Thus was the Catholic hierarchy early established in Britain. Little is know of the survival of the Church during Anglo-Saxon invasion. In any case, the Church of England is descended from the Catholic hierarchy established by St. Augustine of Canterbury, sent by Pope Gregory I. There was no independent hierarchy in England before Henry VIII.
Oh by the way, Henry did in fact petition the bishop in Rome for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine on the basis that she was unable to bare him children.
What is he doing petitioning the Pope if England was already Anglican?
It was then Henry decided he did not need the permission of men to dissolve his marriage.
Nor does it seem that he needed the permission of God:
[Jesus] answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder… And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
(Matthew 19:4-5, 9)
Thus if a Catholic entered marriage before a justice and peace (or even before a Protestant minister) without obtaining permission (called a “dispensation”) from the bishop of the diocese, then that marriage would not be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church because of a “lack of form.” The one exception to this is marriage before a priest of an Orthodox church (e.g. a Greek Orthodox priest). Since the requirement of canonical form is a law of the Catholic Church, it applies only to Catholics. It is important to remember, however, that the Church recognized as valid the marriage of two persons who are not Catholic, whether they are non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians, whether they marry in their own church or another church or with a civil ceremony. The only requirement for the marriage of non-Catholics is that there be some legitimate ceremony, that is ceremony which the laws of this country would recognize. Therefore, if Catholic's wedding was solely a civil ceremony, or ritual performed in another faith without the Church's permission, then the union can be declared invalid.
Question? If your catholic and marry outside the church it is NOT recognized, but if your outside the catholic church and are married it IS recognized.
This doesn't seem to jive with the scripture you posted. Not sure I've seen “dispensation” included in Holy Scripture.
This doesn't seem to jive with the scripture you posted. Not sure I've seen “dispensation” included in Holy Scripture.
The Church has the authority to stipulate what are the requirements for its members to enter into a valid marriage, just as the state has over its citizens. It is not just a question of the Church not recognizing a marriage, the alleged marriage IS NOT VALID. This is a question of internal Church discipline. It is no different than the state declaring that attempted marriages contrary to the law are not valid.
For the marriages between non-Catholics, they are not members of the Church and do not fall under Canon law. I am sure that you would be the first to complain if the Church were to declare all non-Catholic marriages invalid.
As to the question of dispensations, the maker of the law has the right to dispense from it.
Henry petitioned the bishop in Rome for an annulment and he was refused because of personal animosities held between the bishop and the King.
Gee, this Calvinism is exciting isn't it.
As a baptized Roman Catholic circa 1967, I take offense at the Holy Father’s remarks. I think it is the height of arrogance to assert that only one church, his, is the only true church and other religions are merely “communities”.
If we are all God’s children succeeded from Adam and Eve as the bible teaches, then I interpret any gathering of two or more in His name to be a community with complete apostolic succession.
...with apologies to Paul Stookey.
—PP
He does. The one that isn’t abridged or heavily edited. Unlike many of the posters on this thread.
You wrote:
“The Church is the body of believers.”
In the beginning the body of believers were all Catholics. There was only one Church - and it was the Catholic Church.
“One does not have to be Roman Catholic to be a Christian.”
No, but one has to be Catholic to be in the Church wich Christ founded.
You wrote:
“God makes a lot of things. Are you suggesting that the next time He creates a traffic jam that I just sit there and wait?”
Wow, you really can stray from common sense pretty easily.
***Once again I claim there is an anti-Christ sitting on the Throne of Peter in Rome. ***
Claim away. Once again I claim that those who do not follow the Church of Christ are following the church of the brightest angel. Do you sport horns in public?
***As an Orthodox Christian, I have to say that I find this offensive. The Catholic Church removed itself from apostolic succession in 1054 when it decided to remove itself from communion with the rest of Christendom. If you’re concerned about apostolic succession, Orthodoxy is the only communion that has a true claim to it. Sorry Catholics, that’s just the way it is.***
That is not the way it is. The Latin branch did not remove itself from the rest of Christendom. We need to talk.
***The Church is the body of believers. One does not have to be Roman Catholic to be a Christian.***
Do you have evidence?
***No fiat from a man in Italy can nullify my personal relationship with Christ.***
Without the Church, how are you certain that your relationship is with Christ and not the brightest angel?
If Peter was in Jerusalem on Penteost then he wasn’t yet in Rome. The Western Catholic Church has its roots in Rome which was established by one of the apostles. The Jerusalem church had a different outcome.
You are conflating several different stories. If you want to discuss Revelation you have to find out what all those folks are really saying. Become an expert in the matter.
Needs another try. This time say something. Subject Verb Predicate. You know, the basics.
BTW, the Spirit is there to provide guidance regarding governance of "the Church" ~ as well as other matters.
Besides if God should find the need for followers he can raise them up out of the ground itself.
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.