Pope: Other Christians not true churches

AP ^ | July 11, 2007 | NICOLE WINFIELD

[tantiboh]

~”...Faith without works is dead, but works without faith is also dead.”~

OK, so we agree on the point. Since faith without works shrivels and dies, and you need faith to be saved, then works are necessary for salvation.

The only difference in our theologies on this point, then, is that mine formalizes good works to some extent as a guideline on how to build faith.

Since this only encourages me to become a better person, I fail to see why Protestants often find this position so threatening. Perhaps you can explain?

~”Besides, after coming to Christ, you WANT to do good works, help people, etc. Don’t you?”~

Sure. That’s why we don’t complain about the commandments - we just strive to follow them, and reap the joy that following them (i.e. performing good works) provides.

Regarding 560:
That’s very interesting. Perhaps we should make sure we understand the other’s terminology before disagreeing on it. I define following God’s commandments as good works, whether those commandments fall in the category of “clothe the naked” or “be thou humble.”

If you define help to others as good works, how do you describe the process of self-improvement that the Gospel is also designed to facilitate?

[TAdams8591]

My thinking is far more simplistic, though I too think in terms of gradations.

As christians, we share a common faith in Jesus Christ, divided into many churches, the Catholic Church being the truest and most authentic because the line of succession goes back to Peter. Spin offs are never as good as the original, no matter what our Protestant brothers and sisters may claim. If I did not believe the latter point, I could not remain a Catholic.

[MarkBsnr]

This is really reaching, dude. Are we getting a little desperate?

There was no Pope Theodosius. Theodosius was a Byzantine Emperor. Therefore there was no succssion. And it matters not a whit if and when Christianity was made a state religion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm gives the list of Popes up to BXVI.

[Petronski]

This is really reaching, dude. Are we getting a little desperate?

Reaching? Desperate?

You're talking about the one who said this:

. . . the great evil that is the Roman Catholic Church.

[MarkBsnr]

I think that many individuals are not as deep in faith as they would like us to believe. I have participated in and seen many discussions where the hostility appears to be covering up deepset insecurities or simply realization that they ain’t practicing what they’re preaching.

[wardaddy]

Do me a favor: Can you give a concise statement of what it is that YOU think the Pope is saying - you know, the controversial part?

it's the contention that is fueling this thread that is in the excerpt of this article posted at the top of this thread which has been covered extensively in the news once in 2000 and now again when it was reiterated recently by Ratzinger.

As follows:

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."

Several here are claiming he did not say that and the media ...all 500 articles so far are not to be trusted. If so can someone post the truth directly from what he did say and refute this or does it stand?

[jddqr]

I woke up this morning expecting to see a verbal bloodbath... but I really must congratulate everyone on an outstanding thread!! The level of discourse here on both sides is exemplary. Kudos to all :)

[jddqr]

I agree with all of that, for what it’s worth :)

[DreamsofPolycarp]

The end result is the same: the true Christian strives to perform good works.

So, what’s all the hubbub about?

Trent and the anathemas. I have no problem with evangelical RC folks, although we will disagree on a few things. Trent, though, is another matter.

[dangus]

>> When interpretting scripture you do it 1) Literally or, 2) Figurately, in that order. <<

So what part of “This is my body” don’t you get? Your scriptural interpretation breaks down to:

1. Pick whatever verses appear to best make your argument.
2. If you come across a verse which plainly violates your modernist revisionism, simply scratch it off to a figurative reference.

>> Anyone who is able to inspect the host that the catholic religion uses as their “eucharist” both before and after the Mass is said will find that the composition of the wafer has not changed. I know, I’ve done it. Therefore to say your interpretation is correct is in fact false.

>> Anyone who is able to inspect the host that the catholic religion uses as their “eucharist” both before and after the Mass is said will find that the composition of the wafer has not changed. I know, I’ve done it. Therefore to say your interpretation is correct is in fact false. <<

The same reductivist argument could be used to deny the existence of your very soul. The body of Christ is mystical, but he, himself, has told us it is present.

>> remembrance... he’s telling us to do this supper to remember His sacrifice, <<

The word “remember” has been much changed. In modern times, “remember” has come to mean “recall.” But that’s not how it used to be. Think about the word: re-member. It means to become one with again. You “recall” an idea, but you “re-member” someone who is with you in spirit. Not that “re-member” always was used in such a profound way, but your notion that it means *merely* to call to mind something from the past is wholly false:

“But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.” Does this mean that the holy ones will only think of the Lord in the past?

“the desire of [our] soul [is] to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee.” Does this mean that the holy ones only long to think back about the Lord?

>>Sorry dude but your view of the scriptures falls in line with the other misteachings and false doctrines the so-called “Holy Church of God” spews out on a daily basis. <<

For 1500 years, there was no other Church that the Catholic Church. All Protestant churches are formed out of modernist rebellions against the body of Christ. Even in the definition of the word translated as “church (ecclesia) you rebel against literal translation: you hold it to mean some mystical bond, when the word, in fact, means “gathering.” You protestants gather together, and then declare that the sinners in your midst aren’t really “gathered” with you, but somehow the people down the street who you agree with are “gathered” with you. Nonsense.

[dangus]

>> Jesus was not telling Peter he was going to be “The Rock” the church of Christ was going to be founded upon. Rather it was his faith that Jesus is the Christ, his faith, that Jesus was going to use to build the church. <<

Yes and no: The essence of Peter which Jesus was building his Church was that which was Peter’s faith. But I can also have Peter’s faith, but I do not have the authorities Jesus gave to Peter in the next verses.

>> How can Peter be the rock the church is established upon if Jesus calls him Satan?!? <<

Fair question, but fantastically simple to answer: Jesus tells Peter that he WILL build his church apon him, not that he HAS done it.

>> Come on man, if you’re going to quote scripture then at least do it correctly. That’s not what Jesus told Peter. <<

Actually, it is a better translation. In the King James version, two different words are translated as “feed” in the same passage. When Jesus says, “Feed my lambs,” the Greek word used is “bosco” meaning “to feed.” But when he says “Feed by sheep,” he uses “poimeno,” meaning “to shepherd.” “A shepherd”, in fact, is “poimen,” and it is this word which Jesus uses when he calls himself “the Good Shepherd.”

>> Galatians 2 <<

...establishes none of the facts you say it does.

>> #1 << ... only establishes that Paul was in Rome earlier than Peter was, a fact which the bible-based Catholic Church never questionned.

>> #2 << ... shows Paul criticizing Peter for failing to live up to PETER’S own doctrine, revealed exclusively to PETER by Christ.

>> Paul went to Rome << This much is true. The rest is ahistorical nonsense. The supposed discovery of Peter’s bones outside Jerusalem is every bit as ridiculous as the Discovery Channel’s supposed discovery of the tomb of Jesus, Mary Magdeline and their children. The fact is that a few decades ago, apon excavating under the Vatican, they found an entire ancient Necropolis, including the bones of Peter, exactly where the Church had always insisted they were.

>> All the great Reformation teachers and preachers all held the same belief that the Roman Catholic Church is prophesied in Revelation 17 & 18. <<

Which ones? Martin Luther, who wrote extensively about his travels to Rome, but somehow didn’t notice that the Vatican isn’t actually in Rome? (It isn’t; it’s across the River Tiber.) Who wrote that people should sin, and sin greatly, so that they could know more greatly of God’s forgiveness? Who counseled men to leave their wives and keep the company of whores? Don’t even come back at me with the evil deeds of Popes, because I’m referring solely to Luther’s credibility as a teacher, not establishing his sinfulness.

Or did you mean Henry VIII, who left the Church so he could ditch yet another wife, because he was running out of excuses for how his wives kept ending up dead?

You toss out the scholarship of 1500 years to follow the notions and slanders of such men? Has not history yet made fools of such men?

[DreamsofPolycarp]

So what part of “This is my body” don’t you get?

When I see "our God is a consuming fire" I don't think he is a blast furnace.

When I see "behold the lamb of God, I don't think Jesus is going "baaaaah"

When I hear that God is light, I don't think of him as being composed of the electromagnetic spectrum

When I hear that God is love, I don't get confused with God being the subject of a dime store romance

When I hear that God is a rock, I don't think of him as a weapon for a slingshot

When I hear that he is the foundation stone, I dont go and pray to the girders on my building

When God is compared to a rushing wind, I don't assume I should bow and show reverence when I pass a windmill

We can start with those and go on from there, if you like.

[dangus]

I think that what you wrote (the first half) is precisely why the Catholic Church recognizes the Christianity of “Protestants” as the word is understood today.

>> I do not expect that a practicing Catholic can ever understand that being they believe they have been chosen to be the harbinger of the true word of God... <<

“Practicing Catholics” are not chosen to be the harbingers of the true word of God; the collective scholarship, prayer, inspiration, and reflection which bears the fruit of a consensus throughout time and through every land is. Where such consensus is lacking, the church must remain silent. Do you not believe that the Popes would love to settle all theological disputes by ruling infallibly on them? Where the magisterium is silent is where a discernment of such consensus is not possible. (I should add that by “consensus”, I don’t mean that every saint and bishop throughout the ages held every infallible doctrine to be true; many doctrines are merely logical consequences of other doctrines, but in these cases, at least ecumenical councils have agreed that they do depend on revelation.)

>> They would actually deny the sacrament of communion with the Lord because they have been judged not to understand the meaning behind same...such arrogance which is truly only man made. <<

Receiving communion is a pledge of unity with the Body of Christ that is the Church. If you do not understand it to be such a pledge, and you have no intention to remain in union with the church, would it not be evil to allow you to take such a pledge?

>> Please try not to judge me too harshly. I am but a servant to my Lord. <<

I can judge no-one; I can only my prayers to a merciful God that he bring you to your true home. And if you will not go, if you will not receive such “ordinary graces,” that he impart onto you such extraordinary grace that you go to your heavenly abode nonetheless.

[dangus]

>> The rock and foundation of my church is Jesus Christ. <<

No, sadly, it isn’t. It is the faith of apostates and heretics who chose to go to war against the body of Christ.

>> How about yours? <<

Mine is the faith of Saint Peter, which is identical to the faith of the Popes, the apostles, the saints, the angels, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and which is in Jesus Christ.

[dangus]

I don’t mean to sound so flip as my last answer, but I’m responding directly to a flippant way of asking the question. I seriously pray you submit to the teachings of the Body of Christ, instead of whichever teachings of modernist heretics you feel comfortably match your world view, and could shoe-horn into proof-texting of the Holy Scriptures.

[whitedog57]

You have to wonder what they do with the jello with carrots. Very Freudian!!!

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

I think you’re a little mistaken on the nature of the anathemas and on heresies. One can truly speaking only be a heretic if he was once Catholic and then chooses to leave (the word coming from the Greek hairo meaning to choose).

Secondly, anathemas again apply only to Catholics. One cannot be anathematized unless they are in Communion with the Church. For those who are not fully in communion with the Church there is a real such thing as invincible ignorance and Salvation is still possible (still through the Church even if not fully in accord). Cardinal Newman’s “Apologia Pro Vita Sua” demonstrates to me the gulf that oft exists between one raised Protestant and a Catholic although these days that may be diminishing.

Finally, regarding the “mistakes” of Trent, you may be right, but there is a difference between Faith and Discipline. In doctrines of Faith the Magesterium in infallible but not so in how particular pontifs or bishops choose to excercise such things as anathemas which are simply disciplinary.

Ad Iesum per Mariam cum Petro.

Cincinnatus

[DungeonMaster]

And I would respond that if Saint Paul tells us to make prayers and supplications and to give thanks for all men that that is warrant for intercessory prayer. And once it is established the intercession is a thing one ought to do, and therefore a good thing, I think it follows that one might as well ask others to intercede for oneself.

That's quite a leap. You are saying that if Paul says to pray for people, then that means that you should ask for prayer. The two things are entirely different. The Bible says what I say and that is to pray, you are saying "ask for prayer". To very very different things.

[TexConfederate1861]

Only in the sense that THEY want reunion.

[kosta50]

Only in the sense that THEY want reunion

We want reunion too, but in terms of the first millennium, not by bieng absorbs into post-Schism Frankish-Latin-fold. We will include the Bishop of Rome in our communion and his name in our triptychs when our theological differences are properly understood as one and the same faith expressed differently.