Pope: Other denominations not true churches

MSNBC ^ | July. 10, 2007

[dangus]

>> well done, dangus. <<

Thanks, but not so well done:

>> 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. <<

should be:

>> 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 church more truly than to the Episcopagan next to him. <<

:^)

[Doug Loss]

Then you say that Rome repeatedly tried to bring itself back into communion with Orthodoxy only to be rebuffed? I don’t seem to recall all those efforts. In fact, Rome had been separating itself from the rest of Christendom for some centuries before the schism occurred. The excommunication you talk about only formalized it.

[Ransomed]

To my understanding, he called them “Churches”, which means that they are apostolic with valid orders and Sacraments.

Freegards

[Petrosius]

But didn’t the Pope here say that the Orthodox aren’t apostolic? It’s not a very useful think to say if fostering ecumenism is high on your priority list.

Not true. The relevant text from Dominus Iesus:

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

The Orthodox are among those counted as true particular Churches possessing apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“My own church gets around the concept by claiming they are a recreation of the First Century church in Jerusalem.”

Gets around? If God made it, you wouldn’t feel the need to get around anythng.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The Pope needs to read the Bible.”

He has. He knows it well.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“However, on this issue, the Catholic Church remains rooted in the 4th century A.D.”

Actually, on this issue, the Catholic Church is rooted in the first century - Pentecost to be exact.

[Petrosius]

Then you say that Rome repeatedly tried to bring itself back into communion with Orthodoxy only to be rebuffed? I don’t seem to recall all those efforts.

Try the Council of Florence. Rome has always sought union with the east. What she has been unwilling to do is abandon the beliefs that she has held since apostolic times. Argue, as other Orthodox here do, that these beliefs are wrong but let us recognize the desire for unity on the part of Rome, if only on her own terms (just as the Orthodox seek it on their terms).

In fact, Rome had been separating itself from the rest of Christendom for some centuries before the schism occurred. The excommunication you talk about only formalized it.

This was not the opinion of the bishops in the east that maintained union during all those centuries.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“In fact, Rome had been separating itself from the rest of Christendom for some centuries before the schism occurred.”

Non-Catholics have left the communion of the Church - not the other way around.

[Doug Loss]

It may not have been their opinion, but it is a historical fact. Just because the rest of Christendom tried to keep Rome from removing itself doesn’t mean they weren’t aware of the western efforts in that direction.

[SeaHawkFan]

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

There is nothing that requires membership in any particular church or that there is no salvation outside any particular church.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“As an Orthodox Christian, I have to say that I find this offensive. The Catholic Church removed itself from apostolic succession in 1054 when it decided to remove itself from communion with the rest of Christendom.”

Nonsense. First, Eastern Orthodoxy was no more the entirety of Christendom than Protestantism was. Second, Christendom is about Christian influenced politics, culture, etc. It is NOT about spiritual communion through the bishops and sacraments. You are conflating two related but different ideas.

“If you’re concerned about apostolic succession, Orthodoxy is the only communion that has a true claim to it. Sorry Catholics, that’s just the way it is.”

Again, nonsense and even most Eastern Orthodox bishops admit it. There may be some eastern bishops who say that there is no aostolic succssion among Catholics, but they are definitely a minority at best.

Sorry, most of your own bishops don’t support you. You may be out of communion with them. How ironic.

[Petrosius]

It may not have been their opinion, but it is a historical fact.

And which ecumenical council declared the teachings of Rome to be heretical? By your own ecclesiology until such an event all we can have is a theological dispute, not a rupture of the Church.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“There is nothing that requires membership in any particular church or that there is no salvation outside any particular church.”

Christ died to forgive our sins and found the Church that would carry that forgiveness to us in later generations. Only a Protestant - who is his own church and pope - would think he could thumb his nose at Christ’s creation and yet imagine it doesn’t matter.

[vladimir998]

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." {Matt 18:15-18 RSV}

[trisham]

:)

[DustyMoment]

the Catholic Church is rooted in the first century

I was trying to be generous and give them credit for a modicum of modernization.

[tiki]

Quick, someone who remembers the title of the other thread, grab it and cut and paste it here and be done with it.

[tiki]

It is like that sore in their mouth that they can’t help but irritate with their tongue. It obviously causes them pain but they can’t leave it alone even though it just makes the pain worse and the healing slower.

[tiki]

That is what is so hilarious. Non-Catholics make the most horrendous charges against the Catholic Church and then whine about this. It just shows how those logs can obscure their vision.