Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protestants aren't proper Christians, says Pope
Daily Mail ^ | 11th July 2007 | SIMON CALDWELL

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.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholics; pope; protestants; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 601-606 next last
To: conservonator; Dr. Eckleburg
That paragraph is in a section that specifically addresses non-Christian peoples and religions. Protestants are Christians and as such are not considered in this section.

Now that you know, I trust that you will refrain from posting this section of the catechism in a misleading way again.


You are correct. Let's look at the section which deals with "Christians".

============================================================================= 838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Pleas explain to this poor old ignorant fool the exact meaning of Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

Please pay particular attention to "certain, although imperfect,". No Catholicspeak. Plain English please.

241 posted on 07/11/2007 12:53:28 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote

The Mormon church started in 1830 A.D., not B.C. :^)


242 posted on 07/11/2007 12:55:25 PM PDT by TheDon (The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: OESY

LOL!


243 posted on 07/11/2007 12:59:33 PM PDT by TheDon (The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: conservonator; Dr. Eckleburg
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

Rather than trying to sidestep the issue, it plainly says here

1)Muslims are in FIRST place
2)they profess to hold the faith of Abraham
3) they adored the one, merciful God

They have replaced the Jews who DO believe in the God of Abraham with those who do NOT believe and profess in the God of Abraham. Their god is a hateful god, a god who demands murder and lying and stealing. Their god and their prophet deny the deity of Jesus. So how can they possibly be FIRST place in the plan of salvation? For those who truly acknowledge the Creator as their God and come to faith in Jesus Christ, then they can no longer be Muslims.

244 posted on 07/11/2007 1:03:12 PM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: indcons
Protestants aren't proper Christians, says Pope

Big deal!

Headquarters in SLC says the same thing.

245 posted on 07/11/2007 1:03:16 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
I am no fan of any church who claims to be the one true church.

So you would be a fan of a Church that claims not to be the true Church that Christ instituted?

246 posted on 07/11/2007 1:08:40 PM PDT by frogjerk (If ignorance was bliss, liberals would be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
Then why was it that James the Just, blood brother of Jesus

Where is it stated that James was the blood brother of Jesus?

247 posted on 07/11/2007 1:10:52 PM PDT by frogjerk (If ignorance was bliss, liberals would be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: TheDon; wmfights
Please note:

Acts 1:
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


Matthias was selected specifically to replace Judas and restore the number of Apostles to 12. (Pay no attention to the fact that the "laying on of hands is mentioned".)

The "appointment" of Paul was by Jesus Himself and was in no way a "successor" process.

248 posted on 07/11/2007 1:13:10 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Not sure what there is to explain, those who believe and are properly baptized are members of the Church but due to their self imposed exile, their membership is imperfect, incomplete, not what it could be. Since they have cut them selves off from the fullness of Revelation by cleaving to an eccleisical (sp?) body rather than the Church, they lack what the Ethiopian eunuch had: a guide.

As you can see, Reggie, it says nothing of their worthiness of salvation only their status with in the visible Church.

249 posted on 07/11/2007 1:14:12 PM PDT by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: lupie; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; xzins; topcat54; wmfights; Alex Murphy; 1000 silverlings
Rather than trying to sidestep the issue, it plainly says here

1)Muslims are in FIRST place
2)they profess to hold the faith of Abraham
3) they adored the one, merciful God

They have replaced the Jews who DO believe in the God of Abraham with those who do NOT believe and profess in the God of Abraham. Their god is a hateful god, a god who demands murder and lying and stealing. Their god and their prophet deny the deity of Jesus. So how can they possibly be FIRST place in the plan of salvation? For those who truly acknowledge the Creator as their God and come to faith in Jesus Christ, then they can no longer be Muslims.

Yes, it is truly an astounding statement. One wonders what's behind it since Scripture does not support the error of putting muslims ahead of the Jews.

Sounds like all that latent anti-semitism which the Jews worry about may actually be present in the RCC catechism.

How else to explain designating muslims in "first place" over the Jews?

250 posted on 07/11/2007 1:15:12 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

bump to 250


251 posted on 07/11/2007 1:16:05 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: lupie

First place after the Jews, read the whole section for comprehension. If what you state were true and what the catechism lays our, I would agree, I would have to if I were to remain in communion with the Church, but your interpretation is not only wrong, it’s obviously wrong.


252 posted on 07/11/2007 1:17:51 PM PDT by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: conservonator; lupie; OLD REGGIE; topcat54
First place after the Jews

That's not what the text says.

If the RCC intends for the text to read according to your interpretation, they will have to rewrite the text.

253 posted on 07/11/2007 1:22:42 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

If we can get a few more puns like that, we can have a virtual poupouri of Popery.


254 posted on 07/11/2007 1:25:17 PM PDT by wolfinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Not sure what there is to explain, those who believe and are properly baptized are members of the Church but due to their self imposed exile, their membership is imperfect, incomplete, not what it could be. Since they have cut them selves off from the fullness of Revelation by cleaving to an eccleisical (sp?) body rather than the Church, they lack what the Ethiopian eunuch had: a guide.

As you can see, Reggie, it says nothing of their worthiness of salvation only their status with in the visible Church.


And salvation requires this so-called "visible church"? Is there such a thing as an "imperfect" salvation?

As you can see, conservonator, you answered in Catholicspeak. Of course, I expected it.

255 posted on 07/11/2007 1:25:20 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: lupie
Amen.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." -- Matthew 23:9

What's unclear or confusing about that statement?

Every day in every RC church that error is being committed against the clear admonition of Jesus Christ.

One among many.

256 posted on 07/11/2007 1:30:27 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
From the Catechism: (again...)

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what the Church teaches? If what you believe the text to say it actually said, I would believe it since I'm a faithful Catholic, in fact I would be posting AMEN!!! to your assertions, but you're wrong, either out of ignorance or malice I have no idea, but suffice it to say, if you were correct in your interpretation of this issue, we would not be having this exchange.

257 posted on 07/11/2007 1:31:09 PM PDT by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

i mised the part where you answered my scientific questions


258 posted on 07/11/2007 1:32:12 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; conservonator; lupie; topcat54
If the RCC intends for the text to read according to your interpretation, they will have to rewrite the text.

You are missing something:

There is no teaching of the RCC that is so clear it cannot be denied, interpreted, or reinterpreted as desired.

259 posted on 07/11/2007 1:32:37 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

I understand there is another side to the scripture in question regarding apostolic succession. I was just pointing out that apostolic succession is referenced in the New Testament.


260 posted on 07/11/2007 1:33:16 PM PDT by TheDon (The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 601-606 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson