Posted on 07/10/2007 8:57:47 AM PDT by f150sound
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - 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.
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."
"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.
I reiterate: the Catholic Church teaches that all the baptized are members of Christ's Church.
The Lord may call you but it is up to men whether you are worthy.
The Lord ordained that there is one Church, not men.
So you would leave the Church, and all her Sacraments because of politcal pride? You would leave because you don’t agree with the Pope? I have to think that perhaps you and your spouse really don’t understand everything you’ve been teaching if you would leave because of pride.
If you want to believe God commands you to hate Arabs in all times and all places, more power to you. I happen to believe in a God who measures us by the same measure we use against others.
So says the little man in the funny hat. What the pope says doesn't matter much does it?
You do not know a direct quote from a paraphrase.
Goodbye.
You do not know a non sequitur from a direct quote.
I'm sorry, but the "sacraments" don't provide salvation. The only thing required for salvation was Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, and my repentance and acceptance of that sacrifice for my sins. The Communion table is a rite or ritual that we are commanded to follow after we have received salvation, so that we remember the sacrifice He made on our behalf. It has no role in salvation or sanctification in and of itself.
Furthermore, I can find nothing in the scripture to support a teaching that an "apostolic succession" is necessary for a group of believers to be a part of the Church of Christ. As you read the New Testament, virtually everywhere a group of believers existed, they were referred to as the church. The Church is not the RCC, the UMC, the SBC, or any other organization - the Church is comprised of everyone who bleieves in Christ and has accepted His gift of salvation, as explained in the bible, not in any denominational doctrine (and yes, for this purpose, I refer to the RCC as another denomination).
Stark, you must have gone through some painful stuff. You really might find it valuable to talk to a knowledgeable Catholic or a priest, because you have gotten an earful of falsehood from somebody. I am grateful that you are starting to sort out what's true and what isn't.
This may provide some clarification:
(1) If anybody told you you are going to hell because you are not Catholic, they are liars. But now you know that.
(2) If anybody told you that all couples who are not married in the Catholic Church, are living in sin, they are liars too.
(3) The concept of "illegitimate child" or "bastard" is not found in canon law and the concept does not exist in the Catholic church. The term "natural child" is used in Canon law to refer to the child of unmarried parents. The entire context is to secure the child's right to his parents' support and nurturance whether they are married or not.
Do not let ignorant people inflict pain on you. And please do not abide in these falsehoods any more.
Why'd you pick all the gloomy stuff to believe? (and all the dumb bigoted Catholics to learn it from?)
Heck, my dad had a "wife still living", as they used to say, when he and mom got hitched,but somehow 48 years later, give or take, I became a Catholic and, if you leave out some of the worst and sappiest hymns ever inflicted by banal and maudlin musicians on an unsuspecting populace, it's been great! And recently my parish got a WONDERFUL organist with actual TASTE, so now the music is good too!
Being Catholic (or hanging around Catholics) is no excuse for not thinking. You gotta use the wits God gave you. And one way to do so is to make sure you go to a parish with priests who love Jesus and have two wits to rub together. Don't listen to that other B.S.! This whole world was made by "the Love that moves the sun and other stars" and if you were the only human in it, and you needed God's Son to die for you, He'd do it in a heartbeat!
There are still plenty of people who think I'm illegitimate, and on my own toot I AM! Completely! No intrinsic redeeming characteristics whatsoever! None that aren't tainted by sin, anyway.
But for some reason, I keep hearing God say, "Once you were no people, but now you are MY people!"
I bet if you keep listening, you'll hear it too.
Excuse me. I have these fits occasionally.
I’ll certainly agree with that.
So why all the crying when the Catholic church makes a distinction that Protestants agree with?
Should we go into the self interest of the Pope saying that the only true church on earth shall be that which believes in his primacy?
Now I'll agree that baptism can be the public profession of faith, as in some churches you don't go down front to get 'saved'. But is it necessary? Hmmmm, does requirement of baptism equate to works vs. faith? I think as a Southerner we sort of expect it down here but I'm not sure it's necessary. Always marked it up to a change in the heart as the defining moment
Does it trouble you that much when others try to correct your mistakes in fact and jumps in logic?
Oh, those people. The ones who have celibate, unmarried bishops in spite of the twice-stated New Testament requirement that bishops be married and have children.
When I read what you wrote I burst into tears because it hit me that I could never call him anything again. In answer to your question. When I was a little girl, I called him "Daddy." When I grew up, I always called him "Dad." If he were here today, I'd gladly call him anything. I'm sorry.
Jesus? No.
But I know somebody who does! He goes by many names.....
It's also worth noting that when there were disagreements, in those early days, those involved deferred to Peter. Why would they have done that, if not for the fact that Jesus Himself put Peter in charge? After all, Paul was not one of those who were the first Apostles of Jesus; he had not spoken with him face to face as they had, so he deferred to them.
When I (Catholic) got married to my (at that time Baptist) husband, he just has to get a document from the Baptist affirming that he was baptized with water “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
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.