Skip to comments.Pope Asserts Catholic Primacy
Posted on 07/11/2007 7:32:55 AM PDT by kellynla
Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released yesterday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.
The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.
"It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church," the group said in a letter charging that the document took ecumenical dialogue back to the era before the Second Vatican Council.
It was the second time in a week that Benedict has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revived the old Latin Mass a move cheered by Catholic traditionalists but criticized by more liberal ones as a step backward from Vatican II.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So I insult people when I speak the truth? So be it. I certainly don’t care what Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell or any other protestant says, why should you care what the Catholic Church says? I have certainly been told I am going to hell from a protestant at an airport in Wisconsin. Does it bother me? No.
And yes people do make up their own doctrines, why so many protestant churches if they all came to the truth independantly? To which Church does the Holy Spirit speak to? They can’t all have the truth if they teach different things. This is the fallacy of sola scriptura.
Even Luther believed that...
“If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man (The Pope), the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order. Each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principal. In this way, as many churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills in order that all may be assembled in one unity that his power be exercised by one man to whom also he commits it. Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity, and this order of the power, let him not boast of his great enlightenment or his wonderful works.”
Martin Luther, prior to his break with the Catholic Church
“There are as many sects now and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism. Another denies the sacrament. A third believes that there is another world between this and the last day. Some teach that Christ is not God. Some say this, Some say that. There is no rustic so rude, but that if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself must be a profit.”
Martin Luther, 1525, 7 years after his break with the Catholic Church
As far as Salvation is concerned, I stand corrected,
The Catholic Church states in CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions for salvation, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
But the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.
These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or “ baptism of desire”
The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD)
“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:34:1 [A.D. 110]).
There are many more examples. But you don’t seem to be interested in what the Church Fathers said. They are important because it shows an apostolicity.
John 6:53-57 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you...
The Lord thinks so. So do I.
It sounds like a question of what it really means to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Christ gave the keys to Peter, giving Him the power to bind and to loosen. But the Church believe God’s mercy is greater than we know (thankfully). It’s called ‘baptism of desire’. Think of the good thief on the cross, He was saved without it. The Church also believes that God takes care of those who have never heard of Him. Like some guy living in Outer Mongolia. Ulimately, God is still the judge, only God knows what is in men’s hearts.
The Cathoic Church has declared that salvation is through grace. But the Sacraments such as Baptism, Reconcilliation, the Holy Eucharist are instituted by Jesus to help us in our journey so they are essential. Jesus was baptised by John, Jesus instituted the Mass at the last supper. They are not man-made. They provide the graces we need to withstand sin and keep us grounded to the laws of God. Good works are needed because they are ‘faith’ in action, they are acts of mercy and Jesus calls us- such as the parable of the good Samaritan. He commands us to “do likewise”. As St. James wrote, “not by faith alone”.
I am a terrible sinner and I fly to the mercy of God through His sacraments and I am grateful for them. They are gifts we need and should not reject them.
Yup, but then Peter died.
But the Church believe Gods mercy is greater than we know (thankfully). Its called baptism of desire. Think of the good thief on the cross, He was saved without it. The Church also believes that God takes care of those who have never heard of Him. Like some guy living in Outer Mongolia. Ulimately, God is still the judge, only God knows what is in mens hearts.
Or maybe the only Baptism that really matters is the Baptist of the Holy Spirit.
Peter might have died but not the authority of the Papacy. All his successors that occupy the chair of Peter have the same mandate.
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peters successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:910 [A.D. 312]).
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what we all the Sacrament of Confirmation.
You already love Jesus. By becoming Catholic ;-)
Prove it using a bible.
Well when Judas died, they replaced him with Mathias, and let another take his place. They did not leave his chair empty.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in other denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, [W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic successionhis own generation, Timothys generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
For the early Fathers, the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Churchs bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed an infallible charism of truth (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Besides, not everything is in Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity (for example) was developed by the Church.
It was the Church who established the Canon of Scripture in 398 AD, by this time the Church was on its 15th Pope.
Remember that Jesus commanded no one to write the Bible, the Church did this with the help of the Holy Spirit of course.
Many people from different faiths tell me that their church is the same as the original Church. But when they read the letters from the Church Fathers, their beliefs do not match.
Eusebius of Caesarea
At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition (Church History 4:21).
Paul told Timothy, [W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).
That's it!? You found a verse about replacing Judas and a verse about sharing the gospel. Ya kind of missed the mark didn't you. All the rest is babble. By the way a Bishop is an Elder. You have 1 billion people that believe in the authority of the pope but you have no scripture at all which is similar to Marian doctrine. I imagine it's easy for you to see why anyone who believes that all doctrine must come from the bible would not ever become a Catholic.
What you call ‘babble’ is Church history and teaching, not opinion. The actions and writings of the Church Fathers can be measured against current teaching and sadly, protestant beliefs do not square with them. It is partly for this reason ‘sola scriptura’ is taught because the ancient Churc’s eaching might conflict with one’s private interpretations. As a famous theologan once said, “to go back in history, is to cease to be protestant”. It might be babble to you if it doesn’t match your beliefs, you might want to evaluate your church’s teachings.
I’ll give you an example, you think Bishops are elders. They are in a sense but their title is Bishop. 1Tim 3:1-13 says that the Church would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons. The Bible doesn’t call them ‘elders’.
In the earliest extra-biblical writing, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote before his martydom in the year 107 AD, “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage said, “Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.”
Epistle LXVIII-8, to Florentius Pupianus
So the Church can prove its apostolic teaching.
I am confident of my beliefs and I appreciate the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (Tim 3).
>Ill give you an example, you think Bishops are elders. They are in a sense but their title is Bishop. 1Tim 3:1-13 says that the Church would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons. The Bible doesnt call them elders.<
The Bible doesn’t really call them Bishops either.The origional Geeek uses the term Episkope which translates oversear.Many translations now use that term to be more accurate.
Again you fail to read the scripture you quote.The church is not called the “pillar and foundation of truth” it is not even implied to be in Timothy 3.
>I am confident of my beliefs and I appreciate the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (Tim 3).,
The Bible says, “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
The Bible calls Bishops, Bishops. I don’t see the word oversear. A Bishop is episkopos. The Catholic Church has a church-government and a Bishop is part of the definition. I don’t see why you are splitting hairs here. The word ‘Bishop’ is in the Bible and in extra-biblical writings. The Bible also calls for priests and deacons which the Catholic Church has.
Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church, not the other way around- I really don’t see why I have to justify my faith. You on the other hand have not told me your denomination nor have you tried to defend it. Throwing stones at the Catholic Church is hardly a good way for me to see your point of view.
>The Bible calls Bishops, Bishops. I dont see the word oversear. A Bishop is episkopos. The Catholic Church has a church-government and a Bishop is part of the definition. I dont see why you are splitting hairs here. The word Bishop is in the Bible and in extra-biblical writings. The Bible also calls for priests and deacons which the Catholic Church has.<
Episkopos literally translates oversear(look at your concordance).I have no problem with you translating that to Bishop but it is equally valid for some protestant churches to use the term elder.To do otherwise is the true definition of splitting hairs.
>Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church, not the other way around- I really dont see why I have to justify my faith.<
You have not been asked to justify your faith.You have been asked to justify your statements which in some cases were not Catholic Doctine or were verses with no relevance to what you were trying to prove.
As to my denomination I am a follower Jesus Christ.
You purposefully limited your definition of Bishop to elder, Why do you purposefully avoid the word “bishop” if it means the same thing? Too Catholic for you?
Wikipedia also lists it as Bishop, not just “elder” or “overseer”... and you are still splitting hairs.
But since we are on the subject, you have neglected to tell me if your church has priets or deacons for that matter, the Bible says it should.
“As to my denomination I am a follower Jesus Christ.”
I expected you to say that. That’s pretty generic and what everyone says. What, you don’t belong to a denomination? I asked for a denomination.
Lutheran, Mormon, Methodist...?
>You purposefully limited your definition of Bishop to elder, Why do you purposefully avoid the word bishop if it means the same thing? Too Catholic for you?<
Did you even read my reply before you claimed to be persecuted?
>Episkopos literally translates oversear(look at your concordance).I have no problem with you translating that to Bishop but it is equally valid for some protestant churches to use the term elder.<
>Wikipedia also lists it as Bishop,<
Now their is a great authority on anthing much less Greek to English translations.
>But since we are on the subject, you have neglected to tell me if your church has priets or deacons for that matter, the Bible says it should.<
Is that the same passage that says Bishops “should” be the husband of one wife and have their children in good order?
You origianally framed the definition of Bishop so as to exclude it’s original and intended title. Does it matter where the definition comes from? The Church used the word Bishop down the centuries until now, you are trying to blur that title.
Bishops ARE priests and priests had families back then as did Peter so I do not understand your point? Priests were needed then as now for the Mass as are deacons.
So I mearly asked you what denomination do you belong to. I never claimed to be “persecuted”, I just asked a simple question but you seem to be stuck on definitions and are avoiding my question.
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.