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.
In the 1930s and early 1940s Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) was known to the public mainly as a writer of better-than-average poetry and of popular books such as "Fish on Friday." From the late 1940s until his death he was known instead for his rigorist interpretation of the maxim "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" ("no salvation outside the Church"). Adherents to his interpretation became known as "Feeneyites."
Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney's theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.
Catholic Answers
His teaching was not heretical. His refusal to "keep it quiet" was the reason for his excommunication.
You apparently did not read my posts on the subject what I have said. I said that the Muslims & the Muslim Book do NOT recognize a Triune God. I posted a Mullah saying that same thing. He included an excerpt from his holy book.
I then demonstrated that the Old Testament DOES give reference to a Triune God. I quoted Paul who demonstrates the same. Paul says that the Jews are “blind” to this. However, it is still there.
So, if the Jews are worshipping the God named, YHWH, and this God has a different 3 part personality than they’ve discovered yet, they are STILL worshipping YHWH. They are worshipping in ignorance the One whom we worship in Truth.
457 posted on 07/12/2007 12:28:00 PM MDT by xzins
Amen !
b'shem Yah'shua ( YHvH is become my salvation )
How very sad, to say the least, that all those who are to be called RC are to believe in thatm that they HAVE to believe such a lie - the evil, lying, murdering god of Islam is the God of the bible. It doesn't make any difference to me WHO or WHAT teaches that, but it is wrong, dead wrong.
No Catholic has to believe that. No Catholic has to believe that the Pope was correct to kiss the Koran--regardless of what the Pope intended to signify by doing so. Catholics are not required to agree with the Pope about EVERYTHING he says or does. They are required to believe what he says when he repeats what the Church has always believed and taught.
You seem to say: Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but for disobedience, THEREFORE his teaching was not heretical.
This does not follow. There are plenty of heretics running around who have never been excommunicated for ANYTHING.
Feeneyism is a heresy, and a particularly harmful one. It stems from, and fosters, neurotic anger and fear. It scandalizes people and drives them away from the Catholic Church, because it is contrary to common sense and the gospel.
That's a bit of hair-splitting, isn't it? Please define what falls under the "...always believed and taught" category.
Feeney committed no heresy.
To which I have replied, several times to the effect that. "And the teaching is that the Muslim worship the God of Abraham. They do not. That is very obvious to those who know the Shepherds voice. The action of kissing the koran is just an exclamation point to that teaching. How very sad, to say the least, that all those who are to be called RC are to believe in thatm that they HAVE to believe such a lie - the evil, lying, murdering god of Islam is the God of the bible. It doesn't make any difference to me WHO or WHAT teaches that, but it is wrong, dead wrong.But when the Pope merely repeats something that the Church has always taught, Catholics have to agree with him. Not because HE said it, but because the Church has always taught it."
I said that because you had said: But when the Pope merely repeats something that the Church has always taught, Catholics have to agree with him. Not because HE said it, but because the Church has always taught it. So, here we have you now saying: No Catholic has to believe that. No Catholic has to believe that the Pope was correct to kiss the Koran--regardless of what the Pope intended to signify by doing so. Catholics are not required to agree with the Pope about EVERYTHING he says or does. They are required to believe what he says when he repeats what the Church has always believed and taught.
The fact that the RCC catechism teaches that the Muslim god is the same God of the bible is obvious. Then you say that what the "church" teaches is what an RC MUST believe, no matter what the pope does. Here, the pope just affirmed that he believed the koran teaches a god that is the God of the bible (it is not - not at all!). And since you say you must believe what the "church" teaches (and the pope affirmed - about which there was no outcry of blaspheme, as should have been), so now you are saying that all RC's MUST believe that the evil, lying, murdering, adulterous and pedophiles commanding god of Islam is the Almighty God. That sir, is very very wrong.
May I again quote Proverbs 17:15: He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.
and also Isaiah 5:20:Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Like it or not, both the catechism of RCC and the one pope who confirmed it by kissing the Koran, (again, without a cry of outrage) has indeed called evil good. How then can someone have any respect for them as a so-called world leader of Christianity and has any credibility whatsover to say what is a proper "church" and what is not?
I was referring to the act of kissing the Koran. I don’t, personally, think it was a good idea. I don’t have to believe it was a good idea just because it was the Pope who did it.
With regard to whether “Allah” is “God”:
ANYONE who says, I believe in an infinite being, perfectly good, changeless, the creator of the universe—that person believes in God. It is nonsense to say that he believes in some OTHER GOD. There is only one infinitely perfect being.
What people can be wrong about is whether God spoke to a particular prophet, or whether God favors some particular people. They can be wrong about what historic events were interventions by God.
Muslims are screwed up about WHO is God’s authentic prophet. They honor a violent, even satanic, non-prophet, and fail to honor Jesus, who, as God Incarnate, is the perfect and final prophet. In hating the Jews, they hate the people who WERE chosen by God to experience authentic revelation and prepare the way for the Incarnation.
Muslims are wrong about practically everything having to do with God and His activities in history.
But it is meaningless to say that “their” God is literally a DIFFERENT GOD. First of all, any “god” other than the true God is non-existent. And any person who believes in God as infinitely perfect, infinitely good, and the creator of all things, may have all kinds of things wrong, but is at least REFERRING TO the true God when he says “God.”
If a man has two groups of acquaintances, and one knows him as “Joe” and other knows him as “Mike,” it is nonsensical to say, “Those people are talking about two different men.” They may not agree on anything ABOUT “Joe” and “Mike,” but they are referring to the SAME PERSON. It is in that sense that Muslims worship “the God of Abraham.” They don’t worship Him AS the God of Abraham. They don’t worship God AS the Trinity, either. But it is the same God, no matter how impoverished and distorted their understanding is.
Muslims have no understanding of what God revealed about Himself to Abraham and his descendants. They know and understand nothing about who Jesus really is. The Catechism is NOT saying that Muslims have a “place in God’s plan” in the sense that God has revealed Himself to Mohammed as He revealed Himself to Abraham, but only in the sense that Muslims do believe some core truths about God, picked up (and garbled) from Judaism and Christianity.
In the Catechism’s sense, ATHEISTS have a place in God’s plan—i.e., not that atheism is actually good for anybody, but that God undoubtedly wishes atheists, and Muslims, and all other people to progress in some way toward knowing the truth, and is undoubtedly pleased when they SINCERELY seek the truth, however poor the results may be.
The bottom line: The Catechism is not asserting precisely what you are saying it asserts.
Okay, since you DO say it, rather than SEEM to say it, I say you are ARE illogical, rather than merely SEEMING illogical.
It doesn’t matter whether Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, or jaywalking, or failing to say “Mother, may I?” Or whether he was EVER excommunicated for ANYTHING.
That is totally irrelevant to whether Feeneyism is a heresy. Feeneyism is a heresy because it contradicts what the Magisterium of the Church teaches. Whether or not there ever WAS such a person as Leonard Feeney.
Leonard Feeney could be NOT-EXCOMMUNICATED a billion times—and Feeneyism would still be a heresy. The excommunication, whether or not it ever happened, or whatever it was or was not FOR, is simply, totally, absolutely UNRELATED to the question: Is Feeneyism a heresy?
And Feeneyism IS a heresy, because the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism and explicit membership in the Catholic Church are NOT absolutely necessary for salvation.
Or do I make myself clear?
The Church is the Body of Christ. You seem to be trying to fuzzy that simple truth. It doesn't matter that you disagree on various doctrines, any who are born again are in the Church. Rome is just one of many denominations. Now, we are all in agreement that Mormonism is not a Christian religion at all but election vs predestination, I've never been in a denomination where I didn't see both sides of that debate sitting next to each other singing hymns.
What about my happy?!? (contractions are our friends!)
Why, yes! I did know it does nothing to advance the discussion, but then you chose this direction.
From what I have read, post 469 addresses the issue rather bluntly and well, not that it seems to have mattered. My quips had a point. Yours do not. If I have missed a post that deals with the issue with some new information direct me, or write one. But if it is just going to be more dogmatism please just don't bother.
Gal 1:1
It was only after three years that Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter (Gal 1:18-24) and only James the Apostle (Gal 1:19), not 14 like you state, that was the second visit where he did see apostles.
Paul makes this clear and even states he is not lying (Gal 1:20)
Paul was interested in meeting Peter, why? Because Peter was one with authority. He was the head apostle, and so Paul wanted to speak with him.
Well, I am VERY pleased that the Pope is dedicated to his faith. I hope he will instruct the Roman Church to take the lead in evangalizing all the Muslims in the ME and bringing them to Christ.
At least we agree on that. But you can't yet grasp that he committed blaspheme by doing so because he honors the god of Islam which is a false god. I undestand that to admit to that is to admit to a major flaw in your belief system.
ANYONE who says, I believe in an infinite being, perfectly good, changeless, the creator of the universe—that person believes in God. It is nonsense to say that he believes in some OTHER GOD. There is only one infinitely perfect being.
By your definition, then the god of Islam is NOT the One True God. The god of Islam is NOT a perfectly good god, nor is he changeless. The god they beleive in, that is, to use the biblical sense of the word, the god they put their total trust in, is not a good god. He is a god that commands them to murder and to lie and to steal and to commit adultry and gives his ok on pedeophilia. (sp?). Actually, if you had not added the phrase perfectly good, it could very easily be shown that many who would actually made that statement does not know the one true God.
Have you ever done any research on the god of Islam??? I would be willing to wager that you have not from the statement that you made. Surely you would NOT make that statement if you have read much about Islam at all. There are many, many references online that show that the god of Islam is NOT the God of Abraham. This online book, "Prophet of Doom" very clearly shows that it is not. And it gives links to much of the koran so one can decide themselves.
Deists also believe in an infinite being, perfectly good, changeless and the creator, but they don't have salvation either. A person could say that they are in "firstplace" before all other unbelievers, but that still doesn't give them eternal life.
The God of Abraham, the God of the Bible, the God who became man, is not just an infinite being, perfectly good, changeless and the creator. He is much much more. And His invisible attributes are evident to all (Romans 1). He is also kind, slow to anger, merciful, holy, righteous, just, gracious, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and He is a very personal God. That is not the god of Islam.
Muslims are screwed up about WHO is God’s authentic prophet. They honor a violent, even satanic, non-prophet, and fail to honor Jesus, who, as God Incarnate, is the perfect and final prophet. In hating the Jews, they hate the people who WERE chosen by God to experience authentic revelation and prepare the way for the Incarnation.Muslims are wrong about practically everything having to do with God and His activities in history.
Agree, EXCEPT that by honoring Mohammed, by believing in him, they then believe in and accept the god that he depicts. The god of Islam is not perfectly good, not at all. Do some research.
But it is meaningless to say that “their” God is literally a DIFFERENT GOD. First of all, any “god” other than the true God is non-existent. And any person who believes in God as infinitely perfect, infinitely good, and the creator of all things, may have all kinds of things wrong, but is at least REFERRING TO the true God when he says “God.”
No, it is not meaningless at all. You are right though, the other "god" does not exist in the literal sense, but it does in their belief. Just as the gods and idols that represented them in the OT did/do not really exist, but that is still who the "ites" all worhsipped. The Asherim pole was a symbol of the goddess that the Caanites worshipped. The goddess does not exist, but still, that is where they put their allegiance, that is what/who they trusted for their peace and security. Just as the Muslims do in their god, allah.
We KNOW these are false gods, but they do not. That is one reason why you see the phrase, TRUE God Jeremiah 9,10. Why would Jesus Himself pray for His children that they know the only True God in which to find eternal life in John 17? You seem to think that because one believes in one God, that it MUST be the True God?
Your story about Mike and Joe is nice, but your analogy has fundamental flaws. Joe and Mike are not the same. Your analogy works for the many different denominations in Christianity, but not without Christianity. Just because their false god has been "given" a few of the attributes of the One True God, does not make it the same when so many of the attributes of the false islamic god are evil. By your definition, then the "great white spirit" and the pantheism idea of new ages is also the one true God.
God's "plan" of salvation is that all of those who call on His Name, knowing that it is He and He alone that can provide atonement for their sins and redeem them from evil have and trust in Him and Him alone to have accomplished that, knowing that it is the One True God, and Him alone, has eternal life. Where a person was before then does not matter.
However, the catchesism in question does not say that, it says that Muslims have firstplace among many because they believe in the same God. They don't (nowhere in scripture does any gentile group have precedence over another - unless you can show one), and they simply do not believe in the same God. That is the bottom line. Do your research, read on what the god of islam is REALLY like, THEN, come back and we can discuss it.
My spelling stinks as well.
Your quips were neither witty nor poignant, they were evidence of a small mind. Also, the only difference between Catholic dogma, and your opinion, the point of origination: your opinion is a product of ego, Church dogma is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
See, I can make pointless and self important posts too!
That’s not what I said. I said Paul was identifying the actors by their titles at the time of his writing, not at the time of his visiting. Titles, 10-12 years before would be meaningless to the Gentile churches. What was important to them was the titles of the actors who participated in the controversy and its resolution.
That would be reading something into the scripture that isn't there based upon what you *think* Paul is thinking. It seems to me that Paul is writing about what happened accurately as he can. He even states he is not lying.
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.