Posted on 07/10/2007 6:55:28 PM PDT by indcons
Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.
Protestant leaders immediately responded by saying the claims were offensive and would hurt efforts to promote ecumenism.
Roman Catholic- Anglican relations are already strained over the Church of England's plans to ordain homosexuals and women as bishops. The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.
It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.
As a result, it went on, Protestant churches have "no sacramental priesthood", effectively reaffirming the controversial Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless.
The document claimed the Catholic church was the "one true church of Christ".
Pope Benedict's commitment to the hardline teaching comes days after he reinstated the Mass in Latin, which was sidelined in the 1960s in an attempt to modernise.
The timing of the announcement fuelled speculation that the pontiff - regarded as an arch-conservative before his election in 2005 - is finally beginning to impose his views on the Catholic Church.
The Vatican said it was restating the position set out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000 in a document called Domine Jesus because theologians continued to misunderstand it.
At that time, Anglican leaders from around the world made their anger felt by snubbing an invitation to join Pope John Paul II as he proclaimed St Thomas More the patron saint of politicians.
Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.
He said the pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.
Did you mean to say after he was resurrected?
“I know that the Mormon bashing will go on unabated and it wouldn’t be any fun if it stopped”
Of course, the Pope’s current statement makes the questioning of JFK’s catholicism valid. But let’s be clear, Mormons claim in effect that their religion predates Christianity (both Catholic and protestant), so why they want to call themselves Christians is beyond me.
What they are really trying to say is everyone else is a failed Mormon.
I used to hear that term from my aunt. they are not proper catholic. she didnt’ consider me married because I got married in the methodist church. I left the church with my parents when I was 13. only been back for funerals. The catholic church is so tunnel visioned on importing the third world to keep their membership up, that I cannot stomach being a member there.
I will agree, Life is a miracle ^_^ It is probably the greatest mystery in the universe. The journey of discovering its secrets will be fun.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:22 KJV)
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38 KJV)
Whom to believe? Jesus or LeGrand the Magic Scientist?
I'll chose Jesus.
I am trying to understand why the catholic church is doing so much protestant bashing.
Allah is not the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Israel !How do you come to this understanding?
So are all the mormon haters beginning to see what is like to be hated because of what some believe to be false teaching? I guess everyone is mormon these days.
LOL
Yes, the founders were all dead when the con man made up Mormonism. I didn’t mean to imply they were alive. I was talking about how the Founders only meant that Protestantism was a proper Christian religion. Sorry for my misspeaking there.
Really? When I used to live in Virginia I'd regularly have Baptists, upon learning I am RC, ask me "so how does a Catholic get to heaven?"
My recollection is hazy. I seem to recall that it was both while he was in the womb and the three days before he was resurrected. I could be wrong ^_^ Since they felt the wounds, it would make more sense after the resurrection.
So how does a Catholic get to heaven?
Don't you believe that Christ is God? Don't you believe that Christ is the God of Abraham? I am sorry, you must not believe that the true religion existed until Christ was born, that is interesting.
So what evidence do you have that the Noah’s Ark story isn’t a fable?
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”[7].
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
Third Question: Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”[11].
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].
“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
Ever heard of Ishmael?
Coming from an atheist ex-momron, I am not sure how to take that, or even if I want to figure out how to take it. :)
Although I do not care what others think about the quality of my faith, I very much DO care about error being exposed and Truth being spoken. Sometimes (not often) I am the one called to do that, sometimes I am not but do anyway :(. But more often I see that His Truth is being spoken and so, my part is to pray.
Which Protestant Religion did they specifically refer to? So Catholicism isn't a proper Christian religion? Do you believe in the Nicaean Creed?
Lets see, first I do not pretend to be a Christian I am a Christian.
The pope, huh, do I care what this man thinks about my salvation - ahuh NO.
Anyway, thanks for playing.
(Matthew 24:38 KJV) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
(Matthew 24:39 KJV) And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Luke 17:27 KJV) They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Is Christ a liar?
It was Christ who sent the flood.
He would know.
He was there.
You weren't.
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.