|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:08 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/?GT1=10150Quote: LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches. Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II. Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition. In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt. It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.” In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position. “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles. ‘Identity of the Catholic faith’ The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document. “I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “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 Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.” The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because 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,” the commentary said. Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses 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 So do you think that Christ himself formed the Catholic Faith? Do you believe that he appointed Peter as it's very first pope? Or do you believe the term 'church' means much more than simply a denomintation?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:59 am
Where I think they got this idea from is in Matthew 16:15-18-
"He [Jesus] said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'
Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.'
And Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.'" (NASB)
You see, the name "Peter" means "rock". That's where the confusion comes in, because it could be read that Jesus was going to build His church on Peter.
However, if you examine the origional Greek, then you find that when He named Peter, Jesus used the masculine of the Greek word for rock, "petra" (which is actually a feminine word). So, when Christ said "On this rock..." He used the feminine form. This implies that Jesus was talking about a different "rock" than Peter. Instead, it could be interpreted that Christ was going to build His church on the truth that Peter had just said -"You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:48 pm
I believe that the Pope, Catholocism, and all other denominations of Christianity are all valid churches, provided they place their trust in Jesus Christ. That document surely was not of God, if it condemned Protestant churches. If Christ had intended for Catholocism to be the only Christian church, He would have said so to the Apostles. Instead, He said that all who call on Him will be saved. Therefore, the Catholic church is not the only truely Christian church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:11 pm
I agree with what you just said. However, I also think the vatican has high potential of being the base of operations for the anti-christ. Those tricky popes. What'll they do next? Declare to be the messiah? lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:44 pm
I do agree with you Brad, it seems the Vatican is being anti-christ like, since through that document, they're trying to place themselves on a pedestal above everyone else by enforcing that new theory and even judging other churches in the process. It kind of reminds me of the way the popular and highly religious Pharisees and Saducees were in the New Testament since they were so caught up on thier religion that they failed to notice who Jesus was.
That theory really shouldn't matter though since as Christians, we are all called to unify with one another as one in Christ and not to be broken up and separated by religion and denominations. Besides, I'm sure Peter couldn't care less what he was just as long as he was being called to spread the message of Jesus.
I think the problem here is that they can be so focused on the church and thier religious rituals that they can't see what Jesus is really about, thus thier pride gets in the way since they believe they're doing everything religiously right according to thier man-made traditions. I think to them, it's like the Father is a formula and not the kind of intimate relationship that we, as Christians, should have with Christ and one another that Paul mentions many times in his letters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:19 pm
remusandsiriusrock Where I think they got this idea from is in Matthew 16:15-18- "He [Jesus] said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' And Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.'" (NASB) You see, the name "Peter" means "rock". That's where the confusion comes in, because it could be read that Jesus was going to build His church on Peter. However, if you examine the origional Greek, then you find that when He named Peter, Jesus used the masculine of the Greek word for rock, "petra" (which is actually a feminine word). So, when Christ said "On this rock..." He used the feminine form. This implies that Jesus was talking about a different "rock" than Peter. Instead, it could be interpreted that Christ was going to build His church on the truth that Peter had just said -"You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Well, in response to this, I applaud your attempt at an exegesis, but there's a few facts that you're missing. 1st and foremonst, Jesus wouldn't have spoken greek to Peter. Aramaic would be the language, and in this language there is no feminine or masculine. Therefore, we should ask where the feminine and masculine comes in. Well, the answer is simply this: it would have been innapropriate to give a femine name to a male... much like in our OWN culture. The Masculine simply refers to Peter as a male, and the feminine refers to Peter as the massive rock. Think about it. People don't speak naturally by saying that. It would have been made a little clearer than that if He was speaking about himself. Needless to say, Christ IS the one foundation of Christianity, but since Christ did speak of a human institution through which He'd work, Peter is the rock of that institution. At face value, and when cross examined, I see no other reasonable interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:39 pm
Esmurda I do agree with you Brad, it seems the Vatican is being anti-christ like, since through that document, they're trying to place themselves on a pedestal above everyone else by enforcing that new theory and even judging other churches in the process. It kind of reminds me of the way the popular and highly religious Pharisees and Saducees were in the New Testament since they were so caught up on thier religion that they failed to notice who Jesus was. That theory really shouldn't matter though since as Christians, we are all called to unify with one another as one in Christ and not to be broken up and separated by religion and denominations. Besides, I'm sure Peter couldn't care less what he was just as long as he was being called to spread the message of Jesus. I think the problem here is that they can be so focused on the church and thier religious rituals that they can't see what Jesus is really about, thus thier pride gets in the way since they believe they're doing everything religiously right according to thier man-made traditions. I think to them, it's like the Father is a formula and not the kind of intimate relationship that we, as Christians, should have with Christ and one another that Paul mentions many times in his letters. I would advise you to actually get to know some good Catholics before making any such assertions about being pharisaical. It is very easy to make preconceptions about other denominations without knowing it personally and those preconceptions can easily cloud our view when receiving newer information. Now, with that being said, when seen from Pope Benedict's perspective, you should readily be able to understand why he says what he says if you know the background. The Catholic Church has pretty much been the ONLY Christian church (with only the Orthodox Church, which is technically still Catholic, separating in the 5th Century) until the Protestant Reformation. Even if you don't hold this to be true, it has always been fundamentally part of the Catholic Church's doctrine that the Catholic Church IS instituted by Christ with St. Peter being the 1st Pontiff. I repeat, it has ALWAYS been taught, even before the Protestant reformation. And when you look past all of whatever abuses, or whatever other crimes done by members of the Catholic Church, you will see that those crimes are not as if stemming from the religion, but from the sinful nature of its followers. This will happen in EVERY Church you happen to come across, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever else. Now, granted, I don't say all of them are true, though Judaism was obviously true to begin with, but you wouldn't say that it was a false religion because of the Pharisees, would you? In saying that, you'd be refuting what Christ said when he told the people to obey them.... Matthew 23:1-3 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach..." Jesus obviously aknowledges religious authority on their part, but if you're going to make those type of arguments of the Catholic Church, know that they should apply here as well. And the reason it WOULD matter whether you're one branch of Christianity over another is that KEY doctrines are changed, and no Church can claim to be the TRUE Church when essential doctrines are changed, or when they can't claim to have the WHOLE truth, and even if they did, if they can't say that THEY were appointed by Christ through the apostles then you have to have a legitimate defense for why anyone should follow that Church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:41 pm
Look, I agree with most of what you've said. It makes much more sense, however, to get to know the Catholic doctrine, rather than a "Catholic person," which may not know exactly what they believe.
The main reason that I assert that the Catholic church has high potential for being the "base of operations" for the anti-christ is the amount of tradition they rely on, rather than sound doctrine. Also, the amount of power the Catholic Church holds would work for the anti-christ. And, it's in Europe. I'm just saying that it is a possibility.
And the reason that I have no qualms with calling the Catholic Church Pharisaical is because of the tradition that I have previously spoken of. Naturally, I believe everything should be lined up with the Bible. I'm not attacking those within the Catholic Church, but saying that the denomination, or whatever it should be called, could be that place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:02 pm
Sorry to say this, but you are attacking the Catholic Church, whether you admit this or not.
And yes, the Christ formed the Catholic Faith, and he did appoint Peter the first Pope. That is the reason that the Roman Catholic Church traces its roots back to the original Christianity community founded by Jesus Christ and spread by the Twelve Apostles, especially Saint Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:47 pm
remusandsiriusrock However, if you examine the origional Greek, then you find Interesting concept, but not sure how it's relevant since the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then transliterated to Greek. Since Hebrew doesn't have the same distinction as between masculine and feminine words for rock, this "difference" was introduced later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:52 pm
brad175 The main reason that I assert that the Catholic church has high potential for being the "base of operations" for the anti-christ is the amount of tradition they rely on, rather than sound doctrine. Well, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 St. Paul says "So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." It seems to me that tradition IS sound doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:44 pm
Galileo Q brad175 The main reason that I assert that the Catholic church has high potential for being the "base of operations" for the anti-christ is the amount of tradition they rely on, rather than sound doctrine. Well, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 St. Paul says "So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." It seems to me that tradition IS sound doctrine.
Furthermore, Exodus 24: "All the words that God has spoken, we will do and we will hear". The word order in Hebrwe does not appear to make sense, and generations of Rabbis and Christian Clergy have decided it means you can partake in service to God before you get into the thick of faith.
Also, if one actually examines the relevant Catechism on this, "the Catholic Church" essentially includes, in one way or another, the vast majority of souls in existance. The Catholic Church believes all those who profess the Divinity of Jesus+ Christ are in some degree of communion with it, all those who hold faith in one God, and all those who show love to their neighbour (and therefore to God) are also in some communion with the Catholic Church. Moreover, Catholics never say "you believe in Christ+, therefore you will go to Heaven"; salvation, to Catholics, is not necessarily about whether or not you can earnestly say you hold Jesus+ Christ as Savior. We regard slavation to be always hanging in the balance, always at odds with our sinful nature. Therefore, there is no clear distinction as to who is or who isn't within the Catholic Church (Militant). Some Catholics will say only practising Catholics are, some will say every person is.
Even in the Creedo, which is taken also by some Protestant Churches (as it was made to affirm the identity of Christ+ as True Man and True God), claims "one holy, catholic, apostolic Church". However, this is where a wonderful tip comes in. See the "catholic" in that clause?
"catholic" =/= "Catholic"
That is to say, Catholics believe the Church to be universal, but certainly don't exclude people who arn't practising Catholics. And, in English, when we use capitals, we do have a reason for using them. Which is why it is -way- easier to read faith than hear it.
* The Church Militant is what we call the Church on earth. As opposed to the Church Triumphant (in Heaven), and the Church Suffering (in Purgatory). rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
