But what's the difference between them, according to the Vatican?
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.
Truth can be stranger than fiction. It's hard to believe that Christians (of whatever group) could believe they honor Jesus and Truth by killing people.
So, then, you concede Osama bin Laden’s brand of Islam is just as much the one, true religion as the Anglicans?
bttt
I think your catechism gives a good explanation of whom the Rock is:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
The Rock is Jesus and the church is built on our Faith in Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God. The church militant is the body of indwelt believers.
Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say 'See Here!' or 'See There!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."
“Issue all the edicts you want, but coming from a false church, they aren’t worth the paper they are written on”
Since God is no respector of persons, my edict is just as good as his and carries about as much weight as his. I also used a very high grade copy paper to hand write it on. My edict does not need footnotes, endnotes, glossary, pictures, diagrams or commentators to explain the obvious. “Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not upon your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths”. It says nothing about perpetual sacrifices or holy orders. Just “By grace are you saved through faith and not of yourself, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast.” It’s so simple, but then again, I guess you can’t make any money on it or build an impressive edifice around anything that easy to understand.
I think that there is more to the story here. Many people who read the Bible believe that once Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away that there was no more contact. The traditions of the Muslim world tell of Abraham and Ishmael building altars together in Mecca. This in fact may be true. The Old Testament was a record kept by the descendent's of Issac and I don't think they were interested at all in preserving anything other than their own story. We do get a clue though in Genesis 25:9.
And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah...
This scripture supports the view that there was indeed contact between Abraham and Ishmael throughout Abraham's life. How else could Ishmael have known his father had died? If they did build altars in Mecca and elsewhere as the Muslim traditions hold then I think you can make a case that they did worship the same God.
I can only speak to my experiences with individuals from the different denominations. However, my main point is that this is coming from the Pope himself as fact, not merely members of the congregation expressing an opinion...
No question. But where in the Bible does it say to *ONLY* rely on the Bible? You know, the word "Sola"?
“424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”
Wait, wait, Martha recited the formula too, so maybe she is a “rockette”!
John 11:27, “She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”
So, you have the choice between (A) God’s Words and (B) some man’s words.
Question: Would YOU choose A or B?
I don't know...I'm going by the text of the article, and it seems that the word "proper" is what was used...
re my post indicating that it was James the Just, blood brother of Jesus, who was the head apostle after the crucification, with Peter and John in a councilor like position, (as Paul sneeringly referred to the three as "the so called pillars of the church") until Jame's death in 62 AD - and then other BLOOD relatives took James' place in succession for about 200 years - so it says in the KJV of the NT - but let's not let that get in the way of the ROMAN church's claim of succession 0 that eliminates the fact that Jesus had BLOOD siblings - and there was, in the beginning, a blood line of succession - which would negate the rule of ROME - and Gasp - mean that Mary didn't forever remain a virgin, which she was never so claimed to be until about 300 years AFTER the crucification -
There was a reason that the ROMAN church forbade, under penalty of death, people owning and reading for themselves, the Bible and the ROMAN church didn't sanction Catholics to read the NT until the middle of the 20th century. Too many things in the NT are spelled out clearly, if one reads with a discerning mind, that clearly is a disconnect with the ROMAN church =
"There is One God and One Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a Ransom for All, to be testified in due Time." —1 Tim. 2: 5, 6;
Sad that so many people do not understand the price paid for our freedom to worship.
BOTH A *and* B! God's word + the word of his vicar on earth.
Then why was it that James the Just, blood brother of Jesus, was the first ruling Apostle in Jerusalem after the crucification - with John and Peter basically in councilor positions, these three making up what Paul sneeringly referred to as "The so-called pillars of the Church"
It's all in the NT - James was the head Apostle until his death - stoned in the courtyard of the Temple by Temple Priests, in 62AD - and then other family members of Jesus succeeded - it's all there in the New Testament - the book that the Roman Church that came into being some 300+ years after the crucification, forbade, on pain of torture/death, to own or read for themselves - that they kept from being translated into the peoples own languages so they COULD - (Blast that Luther and King James!) = my own ancestors were arrested, harried and driven to sell their homes and, ultimately, leave their countries in order to have the freedom to own/read the Bible...and follow what Jesus, Himself, actually taught -
But what's the difference between them, according to the Vatican?
To God be the glory!
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.