Protestants aren't proper Christians, says Pope

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.

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.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html says that:

“Allah” is the Arabic word for “God” and has been so long before the existence of Islam. The names “Allah” and “God” are generally interchangeable within the Muslim religion and in Middle Eastern cultures. Some English translations of the Qu’ran (Koran) use the name “God,” others use“ Allah.” This sometimes comes as a surprise to Christians who were raised in Western cultures. Among former Muslims, many converts to Christianity commonly refer to God as “Allah.” (This is despite the fact that they recognize clear differences in the character of God as described by the Bible compared to Islamic writings)...

Of course, the word “God” does not actually appear in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible... “God” is an old English word which developed from an Indo-European word, meaning “that which is invoked,” which is also the ancestor of the German word Gott (meaning: God).

The Navigators, a well-known evangelical Christian organization, published the following:

“…It’s interesting to observe that, in rejecting the Athenian’s erroneous concept of God, Paul did not reject the word they used for God, Theos, which was the common Greek word for God.

Some Christians unthinkingly say that Allah is not God.... Allah is the primary Arabic word for God. It means ‘The God.’ There are some minor exceptions. For example, the Bible in some Muslim lands uses a word for God other than Allah (Farsi and Urdu are examples). But for more than five hundred years before Muhammad, the vast majority of Jews and Christians in Arabia called God by the name Allah. How, then, can we say that Allah is an invalid name for God? If it is, to whom have these Jews and Christians been praying?

And what about the 10 to 12 million Arab Christians today? They have been calling God ‘Allah’ in their Bibles, hymns, poems, writings, and worship for over nineteen centuries. ... Those who still insist that it is blasphemy to refer to God as Allah should also consider that Muhammad’s father was named Abd Allah, ‘God’s servant,’ many years before his son was born or Islam was founded”

My two cents worth consists of trying to make the point that the same word may mean different things - such as the LDS understanding of Jesus which is very different from Christians’.

Let's recap:

(frogjerk) "Nowhere in scripture does it state that another election took place where another man named James replaced James the Apostle. Where in scripture can I find this election?"

(OLD REGGIE) "Where in Scripture do you find the election of Paul?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your reply: "Gal 1:1".

Unless you are claiming the first 12 Apostles were "elected" you cannot claim Paul was "elected"

The first 12 and Paul were personally chosen by Jesus to be Apostles. The "election" of Matthias is the single instance recorded in Scripture wherein an Apostle was "elected" by the remaining Apostles.

Scripture is silent concerning the "appointment" of James, the Lord's brother, as an Apostle.

So was James (Not James son of Zebedee nor James the son of Alpheus) an Apostle or not? If so, where is it found that this James was elected an Apostle?

Is there any particular reason you are attempting to put words in my mouth?

I didn't say James was elected an Apostle. I didn't say Paul was elected an Apostle.

I did say Scripture was silent concerning the "appointment" of James, the Lord's brother, as an Apostle.

Call it what you will; "elected", "selected", "appointed", or whatever. James, the Lord's brother was an Apostle.

If you wish to argue the point further take it up with Paul.

Galations 1:
[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

Thanks.

The LDS is a perfect example. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. Clearly, then, they have to have a completely different understanding of who Jesus is than a Christian has.

But saying that “Allah” is not “God” is like saying that when a Mormon refers to “Jesus” he isn’t talking about THE SAME PERSON as a Christian refers to by the name “Jesus.”

Why isn’t it enough for some people to simply say: Muslims hold a lot of notions about God that I find repugnant, irrational, and unverifiable.

I think, in the end, it’s more muddle-headedness than anything else. Some people cannot distinguish, apparently, between false teaching ABOUT God, and a “false god.”

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?

Oh you make yourself clear all right but your premise does not become correct simply because you shout.

Feeney was reinstated later in life and was not required to recant anything. If he had been guilty of heresy it would have been necessary for him to recant his "error".

The RCC has never denied, though it has "reformulated" it's precise meaning, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

That is what Feeney taught and it is not heresy.

Is this heresy?

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

Of course, by the magic of "reformulation" the RCC has softened it's "infallible" teaching.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember this:

There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear that it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.

First let me start off stating I am sorry if I got you confused with another poster, because I did. My fault. My intentions are not to put words in anyones mouth.

I don't know if you agree with the following discusssion/comments:

Scripture is silent concerning the "appointment" of James, the Lord's brother, as an Apostle.

Silent on appointment yes, selection no.

Galations 1: [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

This was 3 years, not 14 years after the conversion of Paul, so this was one of the orignal Apostles James the son of Alpheus

James, the brother of the Lord, son of Alpheus, was one of the original Apostles. Selected by Christ.

James, the brother of the Lord, son of Alpheus, was one of the original Apostles. Selected by Christ.

I'll grant that you have given the official Catholic Church position of the relationship between James, son of Alpheus, the brother of the Lord. This explanation is not without question and controversy.

Many questions are left unexplained by this interpretation.

John 7
1* After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews * sought to kill him.
2* Now the Jews' feast of Tabernacles was at hand.
3* So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing.
4 For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world."
5 For even his brothers did not believe in him.

Are you suggesting that Apostle "brother" James did not believe in Him?
===========================================================

Acts 1:
[13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

A different set of brothers?
===========================================================

A few Church Fathers:

Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI: "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Clement: "When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."

Eusebius: "A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."

James, The Lord's Brother

Feeney was reinstated later in life and was not required to recant anything. If he had been guilty of heresy it would have been necessary for him to recant his "error".

Ted Kennedy has never been excommunicated, and he is allowed to give speeches in which he shrieks that abortion is a woman's right, and he is allowed to received Communion, and has never been required to recant any of his hundreds of statements that abortion is a wonderful, sacred freedom. So he must be proclaiming the truth, right?

And you have contradicted yourself, as Feeneyites always do on this point: You say: 1) Feeney wasn't excommunicated for heresy. 2) He was reinstated without having to recant anything.

My question: If he wasn't excommunicated for heresy, then why would he be required to recant anything when the excommunication was lifted?

Further question: Do you know the function of excommication? It is a "medicinal penalty." Its application is entirely a matter of prudential judgment. You are using the process of excommunication as though it somehow carried the full weight of the Church's infallibility.

The Church has ALWAYS engaged in reformulations of its teaching, precisely because previous formulations have been insufficiently explicit, or have been misunderstood. The Nicene Creed is later than, and more explicit than, the Apostles' Creed. Is the Nicene Creed somehow a dishonest "reformulation" of the Church's teaching? According to your principles, it is.

In the same way, later statements on "Extra ecclesiam..." have been more explicit than earlier statements--precisely because the earlier statements have been misunderstood and misused. The point on which the Church has been more explicit over time is that it is those who KNOW that salvation comes through the Church, and REFUSE to join, who cannot be saved.

And you have contradicted yourself, as Feeneyites always do on this point: You say: 1) Feeney wasn't excommunicated for heresy. 2) He was reinstated without having to recant anything.

You are making no sense at all. There is no contradiction in statements 1 & 2. Your claim that I am a Feeneyite is an idiotic statement however. I am not now and never have been a Feeneyite.

My question: If he wasn't excommunicated for heresy, then why would he be required to recant anything when the excommunication was lifted?

What????? He wasn't required to recant anything.

I suggest you sober up and try again tomorrow.

You used the fact that he was not required to recant anything as evidence that he was not a heretic.

I pointed out that, since he was excommunicated for something other than heresy, there was no reason for a recantation of anything as a condition of the lifting of the excommunication.

Your response indicates that you read my question very carelessly.

First, you insisted that, since he was never excommunicated for heresy, he wasn’t a heretic. Then, you insisted that, since he was never required to recant anything, he was not a heretic. I asked, since he was not excommunicated for anything he taught, why would he be required to recant anything he had taught when the excommunication was lifted? Of course, there would be no reason for the Church to demand such a recantation.

And it remains true that the excommunication and the lifting of same have absolutely nothing to do with the real question: Was Feeney’s interpretation of “Extra ecclesiam...” heretical?

BTW: Anyone who thinks Feeney was not a heretic is a Feeneyite. There’s no way around it. If you think Luther was not a heretic, then you are a Lutheran. Etc.

The basic point is: You have repeatedly insisted that the excommunication and the lifting of the excommunication provide some kind of evidence one way or the other about whether Feeneyism is or is not a heresy.

They provide no such evidence. They were both administrative acts, motivated by all kinds of factors, having nothing whatever to do with the truth or falsity of Feeneyism.

Feeneyism is a heresy because it contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church that only those who KNOW that the Catholic Church is the source of salvation and REFUSE to join, cannot be saved.

You used the fact that he was not required to recant anything as evidence that he was not a heretic.

I pointed out that, since he was excommunicated for something other than heresy, there was no reason for a recantation of anything as a condition of the lifting of the excommunication.

Do you willingly accept that a Heretic was reinstated without recanting his heresy?

According to you he lived and died a heretic while still a Priest in good standing with the RCC.

Incidentally, the Saint Benedict Center is still going strong. Still teaching "No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church" as the Benedictine Order has taught since it's inception.

Father Leonard Feeney And the History of Saint Benedict Center

In 1972 all the apparent censures were lifted from Father Feeney, without his having to retract any of his teachings. Had he been, as some say, “condemned for his doctrine” he would have been required to repudiate his error. The reason for this is clearly stated by Pope Innocent I who taught that “Communion once broken off cannot be renewed until the persons concerned give proof that the reasons for which communion was broken off are no longer operative.”

Father Feeney’s legacy lives on. In the turbulent years following Vatican II, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary retained their steadfast adherence to the traditions of the faith, in particular the Tridentine Latin Mass and the dogma “no salvation outside the Church.” Under Mary’s protection, the congregation was preserved from the devastation that has plagued the post-conciliar era.

Father Feeney "Heretic" (According to Arthur McGowan)

Oh yes! I am well aware this is a Feeney Apologist site. :-)

In 1972 all the apparent censures were lifted from Father Feeney, without his having to retract any of his teachings. Had he been, as some say, “condemned for his doctrine” he would have been required to repudiate his error. The reason for this is clearly stated by Pope Innocent I who taught that “Communion once broken off cannot be renewed until the persons concerned give proof that the reasons for which communion was broken off are no longer operative.”

So, "some say" he was "condemned for his doctrine." But the Feeneyites continually make hay out of this, only on the other side--claiming that because he never had to retract anything, he MUST NOT have been a heretic.

I never said he was excommunicated for heresy--I said he actually was a heretic. I have said nothing inconsistent. He was excommunicated for disobedience. The excommunication was eventually lifted. All of which says nothing about whether he was or was not a heretic. The reason I know Feeneyism is a heresy has absolutely nothing to do with the excommunication, the lifting of the excommunication, or the absence of any retraction. You keep bringing up those totally irrelevant matters.

I know Feeneyism is a heresy because I can read the statements from the Magisterium which have contradicted Feeneyism point-blank.

Fundamentally, the reason the Church never pulled out the Big Guns against Feeneyism is that, as a heresy, it is small potatoes. It is popular only among neurotics, as an expression of their deeply-concealed desire that a large portion of the human race should go to hell. I have never met a Feeneyite who wasn't a deeply enraged neurotic.

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.