Skip to comments.Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Posted on 07/11/2008 5:54:33 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
But we shouldn't call out the errors of the Catholic church cause that's Catholic bashing......priceless.
Other churches were established by disciples in various places. The Pope owns one of 'em.
Is there anything new in this?
Such a courageous leader.
As I was told more than once, "You are graduating from this school only through the grace of God and the mercy of the School Sisters of Notre Dame."
Course, in high school, it was "...through the grace of God and and the mercy of the Resurrectionist Fathers", so maybe that came in a newsletter and various people just picked it up.
how does he feel about hinduism, islam, judaism, buddhism...did i forget anything?
oh yeah, scientology.
Nooooooooooooooooooo! Not this again.
>>The other communities cannot be called churches in the proper sense because they do not have apostolic succession the ability to trace their bishops back to Christs original apostles.” I guess tracing back through the Anglican church does not count? Apostates....all of’em, apostates.
The Amish and Mennonites all claim “apostolic sucession”; the Catholic church doesn’t recognize their claim but they make it anyway. My own church gets around the concept by claiming they are a recreation of the First Century church in Jerusalem.
Yeah Benny, well God says otherwise.
Well I’m gobsmacked!
< not really >
The Anglician church was started by a fat lecherious King of England so he could get a divorce from his wife, so I would that doesn't count.
It may follow the basic traditions of the Catholic churcn, but the bishops and priests trace their authority to Henry VIII, who simply appointed himself supreme head of the Church of England on no one's authority.
There's no reason why anybody should have to do that. the faith and practice of the churches are determined by God's Word, not some bogus "apostolic succession".
The Pope needs to read the Bible.
If this is said from true concern for my soul then I have no problem with it. However I have prayed faithfully and it has been clearly revealed to me that the church I am at is where God wants me to be right now. So I think I’ll need a little more convincing than an I said so from the Catholic leader.
I will continue to pray I’m where God wants me, and if I am led to the Catholic Church of Rome, I would go.
There is a rumor that this could become a yearly event.
The Anglician church was started by a fat lecherious King of England so he could get a divorce from his wife, so I would certainly say that doesn't count as "apostolic succession".
It may follow the basic traditions of the Catholic church, but the bishops and priests trace their authority to Henry VIII, who simply appointed himself supreme head of the Church of England on no one's authority but his own.
I guess the idea of the Pax Romana is alive and well.
And the Hitler Youth wasn't the Boy Scouts
I believe it! :)
Not again. The byline is 2007.
The mistranslations, etc. were hashed out over a year ago. This is from last year.
>>> There is a rumor that this could become a yearly event. <<
No, between the lines simply doesn’t know what year this is.
So Jesus is not enough? You must bow to the authority of Rome in order to get saved. Interesting little theory.
Nobody's perfect. :)
BREAKING NEWS: THE POPE IS CATHOLIC!
(It’d be nice if the news got to the muddleheads who imagine Rome has fundamentally changed for the better, BUT....)
“MSNBC News Services
updated 9:52 a.m. ET, Tues., July. 10, 2007”
No agenda there /s
The MSM is trying to defuse the uproar over the UCF student and that Myers who swore to desecrate the Eucharist.
How better than to bring up old news and create a furor whereby people would be less willing to defend the church against intolerance by creating a viewpoint of intolerance.
I was fed this nonsense in the 60s as a non-Catholic student attending a Catholic private school in Nawlins so that I could get an education. I was required to attend religion classes and, when the instructor called on me to provide a different opinio as a non-Catholic, the other students would start mumbling stuff about me being an atheist, non-believer, etc., etc.
Like politicians who view politics as a means to grab power, the Catholic Church has tried to control religion as a means of power. The Pope is more than the leader and figurehead of the Catholic Church, in the Catholic religion, he is perceived to be the sole person on earth who has access to God.
I respect Catholics as much as I do those who practice other religions (with the exception of the cult of murder, oppression, cruelty and slvaery called Islam). However, on this issue, the Catholic Church remains rooted in the 4th century A.D.
“The Pope is more than the leader and figurehead of the Catholic Church, in the Catholic religion, he is perceived to be the sole person on earth who has access to God.”
Really, unequivocally WRONG.
Everyone on earth has access to God.
Some days are like that for me.
Wouldn’t any true believer think that he was a member of the Church created by Our Savior? That to the extent others disagreed on basic doctrine they were in error?
It’s Friday. We’ll all get over it. :)
So, you have seen my tagline. : )
I have now. :)
That's just it, though. Doctrine isn't just something we come up with off the cuff. Doctrine has a source - the Word of God. Rome claims that its traditions are on par with Scripture, but (amusingly) does so on the basis that Scripture says so in II Thessalonians 2:15 (which it doesn't of course, the "traditions" Paul mentions were orally preached analogs to the written truths appearing in his epistles). However, no professing church has any authority apart from the Word of God - The Bible defines what "the church" even is. The Word of God is what gives churches their authority to teach and preach and conduct matters internally within their own membership - not "tradition" (which can mean anything, and HAS meant just about anything over the past 1600 years of Catholicism). The measure of whether a professing Christian is doctrinally correct or not correct has nothing to do with whether they agree or disagree with some denomination or group. It is measured by how their theology stacks up against the Bible as it is systematically exegeted.
Ol’ Ratzenberger should watch out. There are some militant Amish factions that are not above invading Vatican City over this.
“Seems that I don’t know what the date is. I found this story under “top headlines’
I checked the dates of their “top headlines” and the articles, except for the one about the pope are all current within June and July of 2008. Odd.
Not all your fault.
Well I’d rather he say that than to try and say we’re all Christian brothers and sisters! At least that’s intellectually honest.
For whatever that’s worth!
Yup, Jesus established a single church ~ in Jerusalem!
Other churches were established by disciples in various places. The Pope owns one of ‘em.
Especially we Baptists. Then again, we think all of the others are heathens too.
Any true believer in Jesus is a member of the Church. That's by definition.
This is a basic point of confusion between Catholics and many other Christians. When I say that the RCC isn't the Church, that does not mean that I am trying to take the claim of Church for myself or my synod.
The "Church" is not an earthly institution, but the entire community of believers in Jesus. The Nicene Creed is a good example of that statement of faith.
That to the extent others disagreed on basic doctrine they were in error?
Errors will be burned away at the time of judgment. Errors do not kick you out of the Church.
Simple set theory can help here. Not everyone in the Roman Catholic Church is a true believer. This is true for all churches. Membership in a "church" does not qualify someone for membership in the "Church".
Similarly, there are true believers who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church.
How can the RCC be the Church, when parts of the RCC are not part of the Church and when parts of the Church are not part of the RCC?
That just switched my attitude from “I can’t BELIEVE these idiots!” to “Yeah, I’ve had days like that!”
They probably lost it.
A year ago (when the story first came out), the lamestream media mistranslates Benedict’s words, then attacked him for his use of language... that he didn’t use. But “conservative” Christians all over Freeperdom suddently trusted the media with all their hearts, minds and souls.
“Defect” doesn’t mean in Latin what it means in English. In English, it means “miscreant.” In Latin, it means, “unjoined.” “Defected” would be a better translation that “defective,” except THAT would create an unintended military metaphor akin to treachery. The reality is the Orthodoz are more in like someone who leaves the Indiana Civil-war militia for the Illinois militia than someone who has deserted or joined the Alabama militia.
The word translated as “church” means “assembled.” The Pope was merely asserting the far less belligerent assertion that Protestant “assemblies” aren’t in fact “assembled” together, in contrast to the Protestant notion that there exists some sort of invisible assembly which includes a Christian in an Anglican pew to a Christian in a Baptist true more than truly that to the Episcopagan next to him.
Drunk: “So did I; I just never thought he’d do it again!”
Well done, dangus.
Which is to claim for the individual what is collectively claimed by many denominations. But not, it seems, the Episcopal Church or the Presbyterian Church USA, who seem to have dumped Scripture as a standard.