Other Christians not true churches

[LV426]

Pope: Other Christians not true churches
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christian s;_ylt=Av.SMsN_b.PBS OelLr15e.rMWM0F
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 10, 3:59 PM ET

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday 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 1962-1965 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.

Among the council's key developments were its ecumenical outreach and the development of the New Mass in the vernacular, which essentially replaced the old Latin Mass.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers its erroneous interpretation by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict headed before becoming pope, said it was issuing the new document Tuesday because some contemporary theological interpretations of Vatican II's ecumenical intent had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

The new document — formulated as five questions and answers — restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled 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."

The commentary repeated church teaching that says the Catholic Church "has the fullness of the means of salvation."

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document released as the pope vacations at a villa in Lorenzago di Cadore, in Italy's Dolomite mountains.

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 — and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid, it said.

The Rev. Sara MacVane, of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said that although the document contains nothing new, "I don't know what motivated it at this time."

"But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglicans and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics," she said.

The document said that Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," said a commentary from the congregation that accompanied the text.

Despite the harsh tone, the document stressed that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants, but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The top Protestant cleric in Benedict's homeland, Germany, complained the Vatican apparently did not consider that "mutual respect for the church status" was required for any ecumenical progress.

In a statement titled "Lost Chance," Lutheran Bishop Wolfgang Huber argued that "it would also be completely sufficient if it were to be said that the reforming churches are 'not churches in the sense required here' or that they are 'churches of another type' — but none of these bridges is used" in the Vatican document.

The Vatican statement, signed by the congregation prefect, American Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication why the pope felt it necessary to release it now, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles.

Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics or that the congregation was sending a message to certain theologians it did not want to single out. Or, it could be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

In fact, the only theologian cited by name in the document for having spawned erroneous interpretations of ecumenism was Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian clergyman who left the priesthood and was a target of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's crackdown on liberation theology in the 1980s.

[Locksmyth]

Considering how many other 'christians' have expressed to me the belief that Catholics aren't real christians I'm surprised it took this long for some one at the Vatican to make such a comment.

I've been told that a cross with Jesus depicted on it is a demonic sign and that the only true christian cross is completely undecorated. This is obviously a belief created to discourage people in that particular church from accepting that Catholics are christian.

[philodox]

Pope announces Catholicism is the one true faith. In other news, the pope is indeed a Catholic.
On the one hand, this is a little disturbing, given that this is going to start yet another round of holy dickwaving. Almost makes you wonder what a prince of peace would think.

[Aeolus]

I am not surprised and in fact, it has happened before, in history. I have always been taught that Catholicism, Mormonism, and Protestantism in it's many forms were different beliefs entirely. This may sound insane to some, but there are massive differences in theology in each.

[DarkHunter]

I am not surprised and in fact, it has happened before, in history. I have always been taught that Catholicism, Mormonism, and Protestantism in it's many forms were different beliefs entirely. This may sound insane to some, but there are massive differences in theology in each.

Might be differences in weird and isolated crap like when its okay to get divorced, but they're bascialy the same religion. Accept Jesus, get into Heaven. Deny Jesus, don't get into Heaven.

Of course Mormons baptize people after death theoretically getting them into heaven, but its sort of the same idea.

[Aeolus]

Might be differences in weird and isolated crap like when its okay to get divorced, but they're bascialy the same religion.

Not at all. They both have very different outlooks. Here is a link describing the many differences:

http://www.lepg.org/religion.htm

Accept Jesus, get into Heaven. Deny Jesus, don't get into Heaven.

Not in Catholicism. Catholicism is a lot more about works getting you into heaven, along with lots of purification rituals. Luther brought up the idea that all we need do is accept Jesus to get into heaven, and as a result he was excommunicated and that, my friend, is how protestantism started.

Of course Mormons baptize people after death theoretically getting them into heaven, but its sort of the same idea.

Again, there are large differences between Mormonism and other Christianic beliefs. They believe that humans become gods after death because of a misinterpretation of a verse about heaven, or perhaps several verses. Hell, they even have an extra bible of their own! How could you say something so uninformed?

[Vendetta]

Not at all. They both have very different outlooks. Here is a link describing the many differences:
So what ARE Christians according to you, Mr. Know-it-all? Because apparently all these groups, who have LONG considered themselves Christians, aren't in your book. Also genius, LOTS of religions are like this, they are called SECTS. Perhaps you've heard of Sunni and Shia Muslims? Jews come in many variaties too, Hassidic, Orthodox, Reform and Reconstructionists, and yet all are Jews.

Not in Catholicism. Catholicism is a lot more about works getting you into heaven, along with lots of purification rituals.
Catholics are all about rituals period. So what? They still read from the same book as you.

Again, there are large differences between Mormonism and other Christianic beliefs. They believe that humans become gods after death because of a misinterpretation of a verse about heaven, or perhaps several verses. Hell, they even have an extra bible of their own! How could you say something so uninformed?
OK, I will say that the Latter Day Saint movement is generally not regarded as being directly part of mainstream Christianity, in the same way that Christians are not part of Judaism. Although is can be argued that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses ARE simply Restorationist Christians.

[Aeolus]

So what ARE Christians according to you, Mr. Know-it-all? Because apparently all these groups, who have LONG considered themselves Christians, aren't in your book. Also genius, LOTS of religions are like this, they are called SECTS. Perhaps you've heard of Sunni and Shia Muslims? Jews come in many variaties too, Hassidic, Orthodox, Reform and Reconstructionists, and yet all are Jews.

I know what sects are, but there are more differences between Catholicism and protestantism and just two different sects. A better example of different sects would be Seventh Day Adventist and the Assembly of God. They are both protestant and very related, bt have emphazise more heavilly certain areas of the same teaching than others. They are the same belief, just with a little more dogma channeled in different parts of what the bible has to say.

Please explain to me how I am being a 'know-it-all'. It's my belief system, I can tell you about it, I practice and study it frequently. It would seem that no one is paying any real thought to what I'm saying and just thrwoing vague and unsubstantiated claims and assuming them to be truth, which to a non-christian who doesn't focus on such things, they would be. Others here seem to fit that description much more porportionately than I.

Catholics are all about rituals period. So what? They still read from the same book as you.

They ignore certain parts of it, first off, like John 3:16, which states clearly that sacraments and rituals are unnecessary. To a non-Christian that sounds like nothing, but the entire protestant belief is based upon that scripture, and Catholics greatly differ in practice there. Perhaps you should read the link I gave, or start listening to me instead of being so opinionated and eager for senseless self-insisting and argument.

OK, I will say that the Latter Day Saint movement is generally not regarded as being directly part of mainstream Christianity, in the same way that Christians are not part of Judaism. Although is can be argued that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses ARE simply Restorationist Christians.

That sounds like a fairly accurate description for Jehovah's Witness, at least, accurate enough for someone who isn't a theologian. However, Mormonism is far different than most supposedly monotheistic beliefs. It involves ancestor worship, for example, among other things, that really travel out of the spectrum of modern day religion.

[Vendetta]

They ignore certain parts of it, first off, like John 3:16, which states clearly that sacraments and rituals are unnecessary. To a non-Christian that sounds like nothing, but the entire protestant belief is based upon that scripture, and Catholics greatly differ in practice there. Perhaps you should read the link I gave, or start listening to me instead of being so opinionated and eager for senseless self-insisting and argument.
I'm not opinionated, these are FACTS I'm giving you here slick. Also, there are literally TONS of the Bible I'd wager you don't adhere too either, does that make you less of a Christian?

[Aeolus]

I'm not opinionated, these are FACTS I'm giving you here

I responded to these 'facts' and you have failled to mention anything about that. You seem to feel that you don't need to. Maybe you want someone to:






slick


Hey, do you think you could not call me that? Ever again? In fact, howabout just not say anything at all like that?

Also, there are literally TONS of the Bible I'd wager you don't adhere too either, does that make you less of a Christian?

We are taught over many areas of the Bible. I have yet to hear a message from the Bible I have not been shown in Church. If I were Catholic, and my salvation was assured partially by works, then I would indeed be in much trouble. I would probably fail to meet the requirements of the certain canonic laws set down by Catholics, and I am not familliar with all the sacraments and rituals. However, as a protestant, I must follow every word of the Bible as much as possible, but it won't garauntee my salvation.

[Vendetta]

I responded to these 'facts' and you have failled to mention anything about that. You seem to feel that you don't need to.
I don't need to becuase the facts I mentioned are accepted by the majority of people. I'm sorry that they don't jibe with your naive world-view, but really that's not my problem, and doesn't change the fact that Catholics ARE Christians.

Hey, do you think you could not call me that? Ever again? In fact, howabout just not say anything at all like that?
Sure thing, sport.

We are taught over many areas of the Bible. I have yet to hear a message from the Bible I have not been shown in Church. If I were Catholic, and my salvation was assured partially by works, then I would indeed be in much trouble. I would probably fail to meet the requirements of the certain canonic laws set down by Catholics, and I am not familliar with all the sacraments and rituals. However, as a protestant, I must follow every word of the Bible as much as possible, but it won't garauntee my salvation.
Really, you follow every word of the bible? So I'm assuming you don't eat shrimp or animals that have cloven hooves? You do no work on the Sabbath day (which is Satruday, not Sunday.) Oh, and I suppose you don't lie either. And hey, I suppose you never touch a woman who is menstruating too huh? I could go on and on. Read Leviticus and 1 & 2 Timothy which is full of most Christian law and strictures.

[Aeolus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta View Post
I don't need to becuase the facts I mentioned are accepted by the majority of people. I'm sorry that they don't jibe with your naive world-view, but really that's not my problem, and doesn't change the fact that Catholics ARE Christians.
Down with the majority! Fight dah powuh!


First off, I'm simply arguing that there are great differences between Mormonism, Catholicism, and Protestantism. If you got a person from each of these religions and had them describe beliefs, they would soon be arguing, and you would get different answers from each. Just because they all hold the Bible in high esteem does not make them one and the same. Most old Pantheistic religions all had the same deities, but were still very different.

Quote:
Sure thing, sport.
Dont make me start posting what I find to be comical.


Quote:
Really, you follow every word of the bible?
Hazzah! You aren't reading my posts! I said 'as much as possible'

Quote:
So I'm assuming you don't eat shrimp or animals that have cloven hooves?
I dont eat shrimp, by choice. I rarely have pork or beef, either.

Quote:
You do no work on the Sabbath day (which is Satruday, not Sunday.)
I don't work on the Sabbath.

Oh, and I suppose you don't lie either.


Quote:
And hey, I suppose you never touch a woman who is menstruating too huh?
Of course not. I have girlfriends, but not the sort you're thinking about.

Quote:
I could go on and on. Read Leviticus and 1 & 2 Timothy which is full of most Christian law and strictures.
Romans and Acts have an abundance on the subject of how to be a Christian, and the Exodus contains the ten commandments.[QUOTE=Aereolus]

[sai-fujiwara]

*ignores the two bickering members*

I really lost all faith in this pope now. I mean, the last one was much more lenient, right? Can we just bring him back?

I wonder how people like him miss the fact that it blatantly says in the new testament, that Jesus did not just invite people seen by the public as good citizens, but also sinners, liars, tax men, etc., and this is one of the reasons the religious leaders of the time looked down on him.

Bah, this pope is definitely not holy. I don't think he is listening to god at all in this time. Jesus did not establish the Roman Catholic Church, it was the Romans.

[Hitodama]

Aereolus and Vendetta, do you think you two could discuss this without taking shots at each other? By all means please continue to bitch about your differences, but try not to start a flame-a-thon.

I don't know what this Pope is thinking, the world's populace can't take much more flack, and with this statement it'll raise all sorts of trouble. Hopefully nothing violent.

[Vendetta]

Aereolus and Vendetta, do you think you two could discuss this without taking shots at each other? By all means please continue to bitch about your differences, but try not to start a flame-a-thon.
How am I taking shots at the guy? Is it my fault he thinks Catholics aren't Christian? However, since he seems unwilling on unable to comprehend simple facts, and is mostly trolling, I'll discontinue engaging him in discussion in this thread.

I don't know what this Pope is thinking, the world's populace can't take much more flack, and with this statement it'll raise all sorts of trouble. Hopefully nothing violent.
Well Catholics ARE still the largest segment of Christianity, so I imagine that's where the hubris comes from. I'm not saying it's right, but yeah, they've got a pretty large organization.

[Aeolus]

Aereolus and Vendetta, do you think you two could discuss this without taking shots at each other? By all means please continue to bitch about your differences, but try not to start a flame-a-thon.

I don't know what this Pope is thinking, the world's populace can't take much more flack, and with this statement it'll raise all sorts of trouble. Hopefully nothing violent.

I'm sorry, man, I'll really don't want to ruin it for anyone, just trying to defend myself.

Anyway, I like what Sai said, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't started by Jesus himself, and Paul is the one credited for spreading the teachings of Jesus and helping to create, along with Jesus' fundamental teachings, the Christianic belief system.

[Locksmyth]

Anyone who worships Jesus Christ is a Christian. Period.
There are different 'versions' of christianity there always has been. Oh and incase anyone is curious I was born a Catholic and in early highschool started attending a Lutherian church.
Luther brought up the idea that all we need do is accept Jesus to get into heaven, and as a result he was excommunicated and that, my friend, is how protestantism started. The church founded after this guy. My paster told me that I would not need to be re-baptised because Catholicism follows all the 'laws' of Lutherinism, even if they have a lot more of them.

John 3:16
"For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"
Nothing about rituals being out lawed there. It doesn't really contridict Catholic Dogma. and if that verse is the key then why do protestants keep telling me that if I don't Go to church everry Sunday I'll go to hell, also why try to enforce parts of the bible they like and ignore the parts they don't. Why tell homosexuals they are going to hell when the most important aspect of your religion is John 3:16.

Catholics mostly follow John 6:53-54
"...Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day..."
That seems to be a quantifier for John 3:16 at the very least.

Now you must also remember that the Catholic Church claims to be founded by St Peter. Matthew 16:17-19
"Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.
18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”"
That passage is the cornerstone of Catholic Dogma, and if it is true that the catholic church the liniage does extend all the way back to Peter then it stands to reason that the 'keys' to heaven will be passed down the line of popes, meaning that what ever the current pope decrees will enforced in Heaven. That is also why people follow the dogma of the Catholic church because Jesus told Peter he had the reigns.


Ultimately when you get down to the 'protestant' claim that John 3:16 is what makes you Christain then Catholics a definitely Christain, you can follow every Catholic law but if you do not belioeve that Jesus died for your sins then sorry, hell for you.

From a purely Luthern point of view any religion that believes John 3:16 is true is a Christain religion, regardless of how they feel about other differences these religions have. From a Catholic View you also need to floow the law laid down by the pope simply because Jesus gave Peter (supposedly the first pope) the right to make laws that will be enforced in heaven as well as Earth. The extra dogma they believe they need to follow does not detract from their adherance to John 3:16.

[Vendetta]

Bah, this pope is definitely not holy. I don't think he is listening to god at all in this time. Jesus did not establish the Roman Catholic Church, it was the Romans.[/FONT]
Uh no, it WASN'T the Romans, except that there were Roman Christians. But Rome did NOT found the Roman Catholic Church, and in fact persecuted any claiming to be Christian for about a three hundred years or so, until Constantine I legalized it.

Please kids, it doesn't hurt to open a book now and then does it?

[Vendetta]

From a purely Luthern point of view any religion that believes John 3:16 is true is a Christain religion, regardless of how they feel about other differences these religions have. From a Catholic View you also need to floow the law laid down by the pope simply because Jesus gave Peter (supposedly the first pope) the right to make laws that will be enforced in heaven as well as Earth. The extra dogma they believe they need to follow does not detract from their adherance to John 3:16.
How would you view Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses? Although I guess they're not much different from Mennonites or Amish (the latter two I respect a great deal as far as religions go.)

[Aeolus]

Uh no, it WASN'T the Romans, except that there were Roman Christians. But Rome did NOT found the Roman Catholic Church, and in fact persecuted any claiming to be Christian for about a three hundred years or so, until Constantine I legalized it.

Please kids, it doesn't hurt to open a book now and then does it?

Constantine legallized the Catholic Religion when he issued the Edict of Milan. Supposedly the See of Rome was also a fundamental early part of the Catholic Church, but it seems it would have been viewed as nothing but a cult prior to the Edict of Milan. Old pantheists referred to it as what we would think of 'atheism'.


And locksmyth, there are Catholics who don't believe that simply accepting Jesus will bring you to heaven, especially not if you don't follow what the pope says. I have met them.

[Locksmyth]

And locksmyth, there are Catholics who don't believe that simply accepting Jesus will bring you to heaven, especially not if you don't follow what the pope says. I have met them.
I just said that, Catholics believe that you have to accept Jesus and follow the popes laws, because Jesus told the 'first' pope that he had that power.

That does not change the fact that even if you follow the Popes laws to the letter that you cannot enter heaven without following John 3:16. John 3:16 only says that the only way into heaven is through Jesus and belief in him. It does not say that there is nothing else on that path, simply that that has to be there and without it there is no chance of getting in to heaven.

[Aeolus]

I just said that, Catholics believe that you have to accept Jesus and follow the popes laws, because Jesus told the 'first' pope that he had that power.

That does not change the fact that even if you follow the Popes laws to the letter that you cannot enter heaven without following John 3:16. John 3:16 only says that the only way into heaven is through Jesus and belief in him. It does not say that there is nothing else on that path, simply that that has to be there and without it there is no chance of getting in to heaven.

I see.

[philodox]

The pope's a prat, and the hats were supposed to be green.

[Vendetta]

I see.
No you don't, but nice try.

[Aeolus]

No you don't, but nice try.

You are just a sweetheart, aren't you?

I contemplate entirely what was stated.

[UNODRAGONE]

I just said that, Catholics believe that you have to accept Jesus and follow the popes laws, because Jesus told the 'first' pope that he had that power.

That does not change the fact that even if you follow the Popes laws to the letter that you cannot enter heaven without following John 3:16. John 3:16 only says that the only way into heaven is through Jesus and belief in him. It does not say that there is nothing else on that path, simply that that has to be there and without it there is no chance of getting in to heaven.

Not sure what Catholics your referring to, but I am Catholic and I have never heard of following the popes "laws"

[Locksmyth]

It's called Catholic Dogma.

[LV426]

And hey, I suppose you never touch a woman who is menstruating too huh?

Of course not. I have girlfriends, but not the sort you're thinking about.

[/QUOTE]


Ok so I have to wonder if you have any idea what was being asked there. Because most women over the age of 13 and under the age of 65 can and do menstruate once a month. Seeing as how the population is quite extensive in the U.S. I believe it's possible that you have indeed touched a woman who is menstruating even if you weren't aware that she was. (Women are no longer confined to the sheep hut during their menses.)

[Vendetta]

(Women are no longer confined to the sheep hut during their menses.)
Man, they totally SHOULD be though. :D

[Aeolus]

Of course not. I have girlfriends, but not the sort you're thinking about.




Ok so I have to wonder if you have any idea what was being asked there. Because most women over the age of 13 and under the age of 65 can and do menstruate once a month. Seeing as how the population is quite extensive in the U.S. I believe it's possible that you have indeed touched a woman who is menstruating even if you weren't aware that she was. (Women are no longer confined to the sheep hut during their menses.)[/QUOTE]

I think that depends on how you interpret the word 'touched'.

[Vendetta]

Ok so I have to wonder if you have any idea what was being asked there. Because most women over the age of 13 and under the age of 65 can and do menstruate once a month. Seeing as how the population is quite extensive in the U.S. I believe it's possible that you have indeed touched a woman who is menstruating even if you weren't aware that she was. (Women are no longer confined to the sheep hut during their menses.)

I think that depends on how you interpret the word 'touched'.
Uhhh, I'm pretty sure biblically it meant AT ALL. Hence LVs comment on the sheep shack.

[LV426]

Ok so I have to wonder if you have any idea what was being asked there. Because most women over the age of 13 and under the age of 65 can and do menstruate once a month. Seeing as how the population is quite extensive in the U.S. I believe it's possible that you have indeed touched a woman who is menstruating even if you weren't aware that she was. (Women are no longer confined to the sheep hut during their menses.)

I think that depends on how you interpret the word 'touched'.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure if they were referring to sex they would have stipulated "thou shalt not lie with a woman during her menses" rather than the "not touch" since they had no problems referring to sex as such in other manners. I mean if you want to get technnical on the interpretation then it's perfectly ok to have sex with another man's wife as long as you aren't lying down.

[Aeolus]

I'm pretty sure if they were referring to sex they would have stipulated "thou shalt not lie with a woman during her menses" rather than the "not touch" since they had no problems referring to sex as such in other manners. I mean if you want to get technnical on the interpretation then it's perfectly ok to have sex with another man's wife as long as you aren't lying down.


lol, no I got it. It makes sense though, a lot of the old laws demonstrated purity from illness, and if they had been secluded, it could be because of a lack of the know-how to prevent transmission of any possible illnesses.

[UNODRAGONE]

It's called Catholic Dogma.

Must have missed that in church school

[Lilith]

Man, they totally SHOULD be though. :D

*bops his nose*
Hey now. Women are free to roam while menstruating.
Jesus said so. :p


I'm totally kidding, though. Please don't flame me ^^.