Skip to comments.Pope: Other Christian Denominations Not True Churches
Posted on 01/02/2012 3:13:39 PM PST by RnMomof7
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy For the second time in a week, Pope Benedict XVI has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and saying other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good point. Since I’m not on these threads I didn’t know they weren’t a regular. I remember when one of our fave LDS posters (the one who loves exclamation points IIRC) posted a link and got a stern warning and the post was removed.
But if this is from a non-regular poster then yeah, I go for zot.
clear as mud? LOL
Except that is exactly what the Word of God says:
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
The word imputed, in the Greek is "logizomai", and means:
1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over
a) to take into account, to make an account of
1) metaph. to pass to one's account, to impute
2) a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight
b) to number among, reckon with
c) to reckon or account
2) to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate
3) by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer
a) to consider, take into account, weigh, meditate on
b) to suppose, deem, judge
c) to determine, purpose, decide
This word deals with reality. If I reckon (logizomai) that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers more to fact than supposition or opinion.
So, I would disagree that imputed righteousness would have been a foreign concept to the earliest Christians, seeing as Paul taught it and the concept was also spoken of in the Old Testament as well.
Hi Boatbums- Do you notice how there is no real actual text from an Early Church Father in this article. Do you really think this is the way to know the truth from this blog? Do you also notice the Double speak in this article?
Happy New Year to all here!
Too often specific doctrines are taken out of context and ridiculed without appreciation for the fullness of our Faith. Plese accept my explanations below in Christian charity.
We believe that Mary’s body was assumed to heaven at the time of her death. As the Mother of God, she is also the Queen Mother of the new King of David. So yes, we honor her above other women— as Scripture says, “all generations will call me blessed.” Do you?
Asking the Mother of God to pray for us is just what children do when they ask their earthly moms to intercede on their behalf, just as many once asked The Queen Mother to intercede for them in ancient Israel.
If you believe that asking the blessed Mother to pray for us is so extra scriptural, then I assume you don’t ask earthly friends, relatives, or other prayer warriors to pray for you.
Though it is commonly believed that we Catholics worship Mary, it is because many denominations no longer worship God in the Mass which is the NT worship God laid out for the ancient Jews—including incense, liturgical music, recitation of the psalms and OT readings now with NT and Gospel readings. We now add the Eucharistic Meal in the fullness of Jesus’ commands in John 6, which was foreshadowed in many OT events but most particularly in the 12 loaves of showbread and flagon of wine placed outside the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle in the desert and later in. The Temple.
A careful reading of the NT shows the Apostles going from place to place, singing Psalms, reading OT scriptures foreshadowing Jesus the Christ, sharing their own NT experiences of Jesus, and His Gospel teachings, then “Breaking Bread” as Jesus taught them to do. This was the nascent Mass. Some of the prayers in today’s Mass were old when documented in 250 AD by Hippolytus.
The Apostles laid hands and anointed priests and bishops, and the Church continues this unbroken tradition of anointing men who celebrate the Mass in persona Christi.
The Mass is the NT fulfillment of the Jews’ worship in the Temple, but no longer open to only the Jewish people in the Temple. We accept Christian Baptisms that are formulated according to Scripture in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Ghost).
All that said, we Christians, as well as fellow conservatives are our own worst enemies fighting over the little we disagree on rather than fighting for the 85-90% we agree on. Peace and a very Happy New Year! OMG! Obama Must Go!
“Pope” comes from “Papa,” not “Pater.” Of course, Catholics do call priests, “Pater.”
The meaning of these verses is open to debate. The Lutheran and subsequent Protestant contention that Christ’s righteousness covers us like snow on a dunghill derives as much from philosophy as it does to scripture.
The Haydock commentary on Romans says:
Ver. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. That is, blessed are those who, by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered; that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity. (Challoner) -— When it is said that the sins of man are covered, we must not imagine that they still remain, but on account of the goodness of God will not be punished, as the Lutherans contend; for the justice of God could not suffer this: but by it we must understand that they are entirely blotted out, and neither exist, nor are considered any longer by God. Still, we must not conclude that man is blessed, as soon as sin is remitted; since the same psalmist, in another place, ascribes happiness to man when he walks in the law of the Lord, and when he keeps judgment and does justice. (Psalms i; cv; and cviii.) And our Saviour says, If you know these things, blessed shall you be if you do them. (St. John xiii.) (Estius) -— Moreover, if sins were never blotted out, but only covered, why did the royal prophet pray to the Almighty, saying: blot out all mine iniquities; and in different parts of the 50th psalm and psalm cviii, speaking of the egregious sinner, he says: let the sin of his mother not be blotted out; which would mean nothing at all, if sins were never blotted out? (Haydock)
Ver. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. That is, blessed is the man who hath retained his baptismal innocence, that no grievous sin can be imputed to him. And likewise, blessed is the man who, after falling into sin hath done penance, and leads a virtuous life by frequenting the sacraments necessary for obtaining the grace to prevent a relapse, that sin is no more imputed to him. (Challoner)
It’s remarkable that you stopped short of citing James 2:24.
As I have been saying all along, there is more to understanding scripture than a surface reading of the text.
St. Paul isn’t sanctioning a dead static faith with God that is once and done.
Where are the posts from those folks who don't want to see anyone try and spread divisions? Where are the comments about how this thread must have been started by someone who used to use a different name or who posts under multiple names? Where are the pleas to not divide Christians? I'm sure they're here somewhere so I must have missed them.
Double speak? No. Like what? Also, this article was only one part of a larger exposition on the subject. This is the link to the rest of the article: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession.html
Yes ! now I see some with links. But I go to Dave armstrong’s site. He has a write ups about this blog. If we isolate church fathers quotes from others. IMHO these people are wrong. I have read early Church Fathers.
Isaiah 55:8: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 55:9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:10: For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
Isaiah 55:11: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
God's WORD and thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
God's WORD is always right first and above man or any organization; we have only to follow God's WORD which is following the truth of the WORD of God and His Spirit will teach us, not men's infallable spirits and thoughts...
You said that you have read the Early Church Father; whoopee, I read God's WORD to get correct Bible doctrine and teachings, not relying on men's infallable spirits and thoughts... I also own and read the Ante-Nicene Early Church Father's writings; but I hold with them that God's WORD is higher and more esteemed, something more people on this board should do before it's too late for their soul...
Only blood makes an atonement for sin so that is one critical area that Catholicism has gone off the tracks. The idea that "penance" must be done as part of attaining atonement. Nowhere in Scripture is that ever taught. When we receive Jesus Christ as Savior, are born again into the family of God, all our sins are covered by the blood of Christ - we are washed clean by his precious blood. That is past, present and even future sins, because Christ's sacrifice was "once for all". I know some of you guys hear that and go bananas because you envision we are encouraging a sinning free-for-all. "Hey", you say, "You can rob a bank, rape someone, kill someone and you're still going to Heaven?" and when I hear this, it becomes obvious that two things are present. First, that we must do works to be saved, and second, that we must do works - or not do bad things - in order to stay saved.
We know from Scripture that we are saved by grace APART from works. It is through faith that we acquire God's grace gift of eternal life. That means we do nothing to earn or merit that gift. If we did, then it is no longer a gift. We also know from Scripture that when we come to saving faith in Christ, we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, who is the "earnest of our inheritance", sealed until the day of redemption. We have a new nature - a spirit nature - that, through the power of God, frees us from the pull of the old sin nature. We have been freed from the power of sin in our lives, freed to live lives that are holy and pleasing to God. When we DO sin, we do not lose our salvation, because we did not gain it in the first place by good works or not sinning. We are kept by that same grace of God. He, as our Heavenly Father, disciplines and corrects us to conform us to the image of Christ, but nothing we do can UNDO that new birth. THAT is what imputed righteousness is. Through no merit or works of our own, God makes us as righteous as Christ because we are found IN Him. Covered by his blood, our sins are washed away and God no longer imputes our sin to us. As far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our sins from us. That is why David, in the Psalm, says blessed is the man to whom God will not impute sin.
When you say, "St. Paul isnt sanctioning a dead static faith with God that is once and done.", I answer of course he doesn't. But neither does he teach that works MUST accompany faith in order to be salvific. Works NEVER merit anything towards our salvation, that's why it is all by grace. If works had to be added to the equation, then grace would not be grace. So, I disagree totally with your contention that Protestants believe "Christs righteousness covers us like snow on a dunghill". That is quite incorrect because only in the Old Testament sacrificial system was sin "covered". The blood of the sacrifice was a temporary measure only until Christ, the Messiah, came and shed his blood to take sin away completely. What was an "expiation" became a "propitiation" and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. When God looks at us, he sees the righteousness of Christ. The righteousness that is IMPUTED to us by grace through faith.
Protestants, and even Roman Catholics (in Vatican II), other than this pope apparently, acknowledge an “invisible Church” which transcends all human organizations—the members of whom are only known, ultimately by God Himself.
Think about it, are all those whose names are on the Church roles really Christians? Are false Roman Catholics—who’ve been baptized but who really don’t believe in Jesus, or the creeds of the Church really Christians...even though outwardly they appear to believe? Of course we should treat professing Christians as Christians...but, only God really knows the heart. Therefore, even assuming Roman Catholic is the “only true Church” (which I do not), you have the visible Church (all who profess to be Catholics) and the invisible Church (the sincere, true Christians among the members of the visible Church). Persons in Heaven too—whose names and graves here on earth are long forgotten are also part of that “invisible Church.”
So it isn’t perfect doctrine or even the most right doctrine in a Church that defines it—rather faith and trust in Jesus—which makes a person a Christian, and part of the larger—trans-denominational, invisible Church.
As soon as any Roman Catholic calls someone a Christian who’s not a Roman Catholic....they are assuming this idea of an invisible Church.
As to the idea “There is, at most, only one doctrine that can be true” you are missing something. The gospel of Jesus and the purest true heavenly theology are certainly too glorious to be understood fully—in all their aspects. As St. Augustine taught, we apprehend God’s spiritual truths...we don’t comprehend them. In fact all of eternity for us will probably be spent finding new wonders of God’s grace...
My point is this, is that every body of believers in Jesus, that is a Church, is likely wrong about some things, and right about others....and while some Churches are surely more wrong than others—and some have a more pure doctrine than others—we all, as St. Paul said in 1 Cor. 13, “see through a glass darkly.”
If the Apostle who wrote 1/3 of the New Testament can say that—than surely we who’ve come since—including the Roman Church, should also admit—we all still see through a glass darkly. This isn’t giving into subjectivism—its only acknowledging human limits. Yes there are some errors that disqualify a Church as a Church (denying the truths, say in the Apostles or Nicene Creeds for example) but it is sheer institutional arrogance to claim “we are the only true church organization.”
Jesus accepts all who call upon His name and truly believe in Him.
I hope your holidays were happy and I pray you have a peaceful and restful night. Happy new year!
Just to know that they lie when they say they want "unity" they want us all to forsake Christ and come back yo "pa pa"
Just shows lying hypocrisy
I Pray Thee Well and Family This New Year coming!! Praise Jesus!!!
Very poorly written article,especially in its reference to Dominus Iesus. The article leaves out quite a bit of what is written on Protestant sects giving a very false impression. They neglected to include this because it did not serve their stir up everybody agenda.
Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.66
The defects written of are not of personal,ethical or moral nature but pertain to the Ecclesiology of the sects in that they do not Apostolic Succession.
“Catholics” do not determine what the Church teaches. That can only come from revelation, infallibly determined for all time. There should be no doubt that Roman Catholicism has always claimed to be the One True Faith (despite modernist obfuscation by liberal churchmen).
You seem to be saying that there is no true faith and that all religions are false to some degree. That is not the Catholic position.
“See through a glass darkly” means that we cannot appreciate the full glory of God, at least while still on earth. It does not mean that we should accept error. We must never be willing to do that.
For St. Paul says, “though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.”
Jesus also said:Mat 23:8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
I guess you can't call anyone Doctor either since that means teacher or instructor.
Yeah don't let the facts get in the way of bigotry
‘Self-centered monk’ when a group calls it’s leader ‘Holy Father’ is cultish and bordering on blasphemy. I do have a Holy Father but he doesn’t sit in Rome.
I see Protestant bigotry is alive and well on FR.
Non taken.. We as LCMS Lutheran believe simliarly about other churches, they are all churches but are heterodox instead of orthodox churches.
The same verse also says call no man “teacher,” so I assume you refuse to use that term too? BTW, what did you call the man you gave you half your genes?
The same verse also says call no man “teacher,” so I assume you refuse to use that term too? BTW, what did you call the man you gave you half your genes?
The same verse also says call no man “teacher,” so I assume you refuse to use that term too? BTW, what did you call the man you gave you half your genes?
We know from Scripture that we are saved by grace APART from works.
>>St. Paul is referring to the 613 Levitical laws, not keeping the commandments to love your neighbor as yourself.
As St. Paul also says in Romans 2:13,”for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
This echoes St. James in James 2:24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
St. Gregory of Sinai summarizes the Catholic/Orthodox view on faith better than anyone who I have seen.
St. Gregory of Sinai, a 13th century Greek monk, who is considered a saint by Catholics and Orthodox alike writes the following in his treatise: On Commandments and Doctrines
Grace-imbued faith, energized by the Holy Spirit, alone suffices for salvation, provided we sustain it and do not opt for a dead and effectual faith rather than a living and effective faith in Christ.
Penance serves to humble the heart of the believer to being a better follower of Christ because he can only be served with humility.
And St. Mark the Ascetic, a 4th century Desert Father teaches:
18. Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith.
Others fulfil the commandments and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to
them. Both are mistaken.
19. A master is under no obligation to reward his slaves; on the other hand, those who
do not serve him well are not given their freedom.
20. If Christ died on our account in accordance with the Scriptures (Rm 5:8; 1Co
15:3), and we do not live for ourselves, but for Him who died and rose on our
account (2Co 5:15), it is clear that we are debtors to Christ to serve Him till our
death. How then can we regard sonship as something which is our due?
21. Christ is Master by virtue of His own essence and Master by virtue of His incarnate
life. For He creates man from nothing, and through His own Blood redeems him
when dead in sin; and to those who believe in Him He has given His grace.22. When Scripture says He will reward every man according to his works (Mt 16:27),
do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the kingdom. On the
contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with
faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God
our Creator and Redeemer.
First, that we must do works to be saved, and second, that we must do works - or not do bad things - in order to stay saved.
>>That is Catholic teaching as well. Catholics and Protestants define the same terms differently, so if you want to understand rather than misrepresent Catholic teaching, you need to understand the Catholic definition.
It’s like using a Spanish dictionary to read English or vice versa.
So, I disagree totally with your contention that Protestants believe “Christs righteousness covers us like snow on a dunghill”.
>>Those were Martin Luther’s words not mine. One’s I’m most familiar with as a former Lutheran.
I’ll get to your other points later.
But I think we can agree that it is grace that saves us and that apart from grace the works we do are worthless.
Scholasticism’s tendency to overthink matters of faith is a big reason why I’m not fond of it.
Please excuse my rants, as they were written in anger at the anti-Catholic bigotry that reared its ugly head long before I saw any Protestant bashing, but, two wrongs do not make a right, and i apologize freely and sincerely for my anger.
As a Catholic, however, seeing the person of Joseph Ratizinger, whom I and 1.2 billion others revere as the Holy Father being called the Po Po and less savory things, touched a nerve.
The Holy Father’s comments were meant to be read and reflected upon by Catholics. They were meant to correct and clarify the Church’s position for Catholics so that they may have a clear statement of the Church’s rather ambiguous stance of the last forty years vis a vis our seperated brothers, it is not meant to be taken as an insult by anyone else.
That being said, is anyone really suprised that the leader of the Church confirmed that Apostolic Succession is required for a true Church? Otherwise, why bother being a Catholic in the first place? There is a reason that our seperated brothers are called Protestant, you protest!
1. Ordinarily, "local church" means diocese, e.g. the Diocese of Knoxville is called in canon law a "local church." It is headed by Rev. Richad Stika, the Bishop of Knoxville.
2. "Churches in union with us" means Catholic churches of other-than-Latin rite, such as Chaldeans, Maronites, Melkites, Ruthenian, etc. which have their wn Bishops.
In either of those two senses it always means a Church with a Catholic Bishop. That's how we use the word.
If "other Christian denominations are not considered "Churches," it means they do not have Catholic bishops.
It does not mean that the members of these denominations are not Christians, or that they do not have the spiritual riches of Scriptures, prayer, valid Baptism, grace, the love of God, faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, etc. etc. It certainly does not mean they are not "saved."
This ought not to cause ill-will. It's just a way Catholic-terminology distinguishes between groups-with-bishops and groups-without-bishops in our statements and documents.
I hope this conveys some measure of clarity and good will.
“So the Catholic Church does its own picking and choosing of ECFs thoughts and arguments over certain doctrines.””
You probably have never heard of the Consensus Patrum,dear Sister
Here is something to help you understand the Consensus Patrum from Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev
This understanding of the accord of the fathers has been criticized for allowing any church fathers private opinions - even if they disagree with those of other fathers - to be fixed (that is, adjusted to conform) to the consensus. Yet there is no talk of fixing things. I have expressed the view that, whilst the fathers agree on the essentials, their opinions on particular issues may vary and that, when the works of a Father present an opinion that contradicts the teaching of other Fathers, we should not too hastily reject it as a private theological opinion which falls outside the accord of the fathers. It is also pointless to try and prove, against the facts of textual criticism, that patristic texts holding such opinions have been falsely attributed or corrupted by heretics. The fact of such a theological opinion being private, and even contradictory, to other Fathers does not automatically mean that it falls outside the consensus.
As an example, let me mention the private opinion of St Symeon the New Theologian that the power to bind and to loose does not pertain to all priests but only to those who who serve in the priestly ministry of the gospel in a spirit of humility and who live a blameless life. It is insufficient to receive the ordination from men only (ek anthropon heirotonian); one must be foreordained (proheiristheis), that is, designated by God through the Holy Spirit.
Neither monks for their exterior aspect, St Symeon writes, nor those ordained and elevated to the rank of priesthood, nor those granted episcopal dignity Patriarchs, I say, metropolitans or Bishops have received from God the power to forgive sins just like that, only in view of their ordination and dignity this shall not be! For they are merely allowed to perform the mysteries (hierourgein), and still only those priests, bishops and monks that can be counted among the disciples of Christ for their purity.
At first glance, such a point of view might seem close to Donatism, which maintained that sacraments administered by unworthy clerics and other traditores (betrayers of the faith in Christ) cannot be effective. There are, however, several arguments that permit us to see more in Symeons words than merely the Donatist affirmation that the effectiveness of the sacraments administered by a priest depends on his moral condition. First of all, the above texts by Symeon do not so much question the effectiveness of sacraments administered by unworthy priests, as emphazise the need to receive a particular calling from God before attempting the service of spiritual fatherhood; in other words, the power to bind and to loose must be earned by the priest by means of his moral self-perfection. Secondly, the Eastern tradition never expressed the opition as straightforwardly and unequivocally as the West that the effectiveness of sacraments is independent of the personal qualities of the priest. Thirdly, one cannot fail to see that in expressing such thoughts, Symeon follows the teaching of earlier Fathers. Long before Symeon, St Gregory the Theologian affirmed that as long as a man has not risen above his passions and cleansed his intellect he should not take the priestly service upon himself. As St Gregory says, A man must himself be cleansed, before cleansing others: himself become wise, that he may make others wise; become light, and then give light: draw near to God, and so bring others near; be hallowed, then hallow them. Both Gregory and Symeon had a very elevated understanding of the priesthood, and both were concerned by the low moral state of the episcopate and clergy of their times.
We should also bear in mind that Symeon the New Theologian lived in post-iconoclast times, when the authority of the hierarchical clergy among simple believers was very low; many preferred to see monks, even non-ordained, for confession. The moral state of the clergy was therefore an issue of the day, and the fate of the church in years to come depended on its resolution. Confidence in the hierarchical priesthood could most effectively be restored through a significant rise in its moral level, which was precisely the concern of Symeon the New Theologian: it is in the light of this concern that his demanding attitude and critical assessment of the hierarchy and clergy should be understood.
One may ask with bewilderment: If two fathers of the church express contradictory opinions, where, then, is truth to be found? I consider such a question to be an inadmissible simplification. There is one truth and, as Clement of Alexandria says, The way of truth is one. But into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from all sides. One and the same truth may be expressed differently by different Fathers, in different times, in different languages, in different contexts. Besides this, one and the same truth may have several aspects, each of which may be articulated, emphasized, developed or, on the contrary, left in obscurity. The truth has many facets, many shapes, and is dialectical. For instance, the thesis that sacraments administered by a priest who has been canonically ordained by a bishop are effective and salutary is true. But no less true is the antithesis, according to which the moral countenance of the priest should correspond with the prominence of his orders and the sacraments he administers. Between both affirmations there is quite a wide expanse, wherein a theological synthesis may be sought. All that falls within that expanse belongs to the consensus patrum; all that falls beyond is heresy. Donatism, which goes beyond the framework of the consensus, is a heresy, whereas the teaching of St Symeon the New Theologian on the power to bind and to loose, which remains within that expanse, is absolutely correct - even though it is distinct from opinions expressed by other Fathers who lived in other historical contexts, wrote in other languages and emphasized other aspects of the very same truth.
Apart from this, one and the same truth may find different terminological expressions. The best known example is the teaching of the third and fourth ecumenical councils on the God-manhood of Jesus Christ. The third ecumenical council (of Ephesus) expressed this teaching in the terms of Alexandrian christology, based on the teaching of St Cyril of Alexandria (going back to Apollinarius) about the one nature, and that incarnate, of the divine Word. The fourth ecumenical council, on the contrary, armed itself with the Antiochene christological tradition emphasizing the two natures of Christ. Represented by their finest spokesmen, neither the Alexandrian nor the Antiochene tradition disputed the fullness of the divinity of Christ and the fullness of his humanity; both affirmed that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in manhood. Yet one and the same truth of the fullness of divinity and humanity in Christ was expressed differently by two theological traditions, with both expressions proven essentially Orthodox.
Matt 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
Fox carried an AP story where the reporter must not have even read the Vatican statement.
I’m only posting it again so the outraged might understand what happened.
From the 2007 article that was posted:
...because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the means of salvation.
From what was released: It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.
Pretty much the opposite of what was reported back in 2007. Shocking, I know.
You can't do works to get saved...You don't do works to stay saved...
We do good works because it is our new nature...We want to do good works...
'Love' and 'must' do not go together, at all...
That's no where close to being biblical...How do you guys spout this nonsense to actual bible reading, bible believers???
Exactly...God chose his own Apostles...No one wins the position in a bingo game...
Pretty much the same thing...They claim that God picks the popes but yet they are picked by a majority vote of the Cardinals...
Poor saps...They each must feel God is leading them to cast their ballot...Some must spend the rest of their lives wondering why God talked them into voting for the loser...
Preach it, sister.
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. James (2,26)
Neither of those two verses says that works are required to obtain salvation. All they say is that works demonstrate that salvation has already occurred. That saving faith, as opposed to intellectual assent, has been exercised.
Grace by Faith, first, yes. Then comes conversion and works must follow --not for one's own sense of self-worth, but for love of the Holy Trinity.
Actually, Grace by Faith, first, yes. Then comes conversion and works WILL follow --not for one's own sense of self-worth, but for love of the Holy Trinity.
Works are the natural result of true saving faith. If someone does not have works, there is legitimate reason to question whether saving faith was exercised in the first place.
Not because works contribute to saving faith, but because they are the fruit of it and by a man's fruits he is known.
This is so important, and so interesting.
Dominus Iesus was as clear as could be that the “ecclesial communities” could themselves be “means of salvation.”
But the way the anti-Catholics present it is, first and most imnportant, false. Then it, as falsely presented by anti-Catholics, give them a reason to say nasty (and false) things about the Catholic Church.
And all that eventuates in threads like this one where all the old well-trodden ground is fought over once again.
But it all starts with a falsehood! The rallying cry, the first post, whatever RnMomof7 intended (and I cannot think she intended falsehood), was, at some point in its generation, either by intent of by negligence, a lie.
So if they so eagerly resort to falsehoods (whether or not they are known to be such) to incite a riot against us, then we Catholics can take heart. We have been deemed worthy to suffer slander and libel by those who bear false witness.
God be praised and may all, enemies and friends, know and rejoice in his mercy!
Very well said, metmom. You summed up the Scriptural position of salvation very nicely. Thank you.
I wouldn't be so sure of that assumption, dear Stfassisi. What I wonder is whether or not you are aware that Consensus Patrum is myth? What actually has occurred over the centuries is that the Magesterium - composed of various men at various times - decide WHICH church fathers and which of their opinions will be used to come to a conclusion about a point of faith or interpretation of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church cannot even state they follow Consensus Fidelas either, since much of what passes as dogma today was unheard of in the first few centuries after Christianity began and "developed" over time. We all know about the later councils - Trent for example - where there was no unanimity of those present because some rejected the conclusions, some abstained from voting and only a few approved, yet it has been passed off as a Consensus Patrum.
So my statement about the Catholic Church picking and choosing the thoughts and opinions of ECFs over certain doctrines has not be disproved. It is easily shown. The explanations of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev show that, even when he wrote that, there was a tacit understanding that Consensus Patrium was really whatever the Magesterium decided backed up their claims of doctrines and fits the pattern of retrofitting Scripture to prooftext dogma. Don't be fooled by what sounds like more than it really is.
I believe that to insist that Paul was referring to the Levitical laws ONLY when he states that we are not saved by "works of the law" is a cop-out. I say that because he goes much further and not only speaks about the "law" but also an "unwritten" law that Gentiles follow:
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in Gods sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges peoples secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
To look at these verses out of context, it may appear that Paul is saying we are saved by obeying the laws of God - not just a formal set of laws - but a natural law within each human heart. Yet we know that we cannot keep the whole law and James 2:10 says For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. This is why Paul continues in the next chapter of Romans 3:19-20, by saying that the law made NO man righteous:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in Gods sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
That is why he now says in Romans 3:21-26:
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodto be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.