Benedict's Bridge Burner ( Padre?? )

bulldogg

Milforum's Bouncer
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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071000460.html

The way this is being reported is such that it is a "we're right and everyone else is going to hell" sort of declaration. I would expect this from Baptists and Fundamentalists but not the Catholic Church. If this is what Benedict meant, then I believe the Church is heading in the wrong direction from one that it was on when John Paul was at the helm.
 
I'm a BWF Catholic.... Baptisms, Weddings, and Funerals. That is the only reason that I go to church. I was to young for my baptism to remember, I'm gonna be to drunk for my wedding to remember, and I'm going to be dead at my funerals so I don't give a damn....
 
It's like this Bulldogg:

What if in 1860, 11 southern states of the United States of America split from the United States of America but instead of calling themselves the "Confederate States of America," they actually retained the national title of "The United States of America," and so there were then two countries calling themselves the USA - one with a government, President and capital in Washington DC and the other with a government, President and capital in Montgomery, Alabama.

Now, which one is the USA? Which one would be the "real" USA?

Citizens of the two USA's would no doubt be split in their loyalties. Overseas, different countries would be split in their recognition of the true USA.

There is no doubt that Abraham Lincoln and all of his Presidential successors from 1861 to 2007, and all of the citizens of the "Union" or northern states of the USA, would claim to be the real, true, original USA - founded by George Washington and Co. and the US Constitution - even if Jefferson Davis and his successors from 1861 to 2007 claimed their eleven "Dixie" states were the "true USA" and were the genuine successors of Washington and that Lincoln and Co had lost the true spirit of Washington, and the US Consitution, and the Bill of Rights, and the spirit of the American Revolution.

Now imagine that the CSA - calling itself the true USA - was not defeated in 1865 but still existed today (I think you would like that ? :))

Now, substitute USA for Catholic Church and substitute CSA for the Protestant churches.

What Pope Benedict XVI has done, is like George W. Bush issuing an Executive Decree saying to the United Nations that (1) His USA is the true USA founded by the Founding Fathers in 1776, (2) that he is the true President of the United States and that the guy in Montgomery Alabama is not the POTUS and (3) the false United States (CSA) is "defective" in that they are unconstitutional and whilst they are a great people, good "Americans" and much loved southern brothers/cousins, they are nevertheless very naughty splitting the Union and pretending to be the country George Washington wanted.

Like Rev. Sarah MacVane said in your post above, Benedict XVI has not declared anything new since the 1500's - or first Century AD for that matter, just that she's puzzled about why the Pope has declared Catholic beliefs publicly again on July 10th 2007?

It's like George Bush issuing something in writing on July 10th 2007 stating that The USA is the true USA and he is the true President of the USA when - at least in the Union, everyone knows that already and or couldn't care less.

I don't think Christians in the 21st Century - Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox - care less who, what, which is the "true Church" established by Jesus in 30 + AD.

But if you do care and if you do want the answer to that particular question, then Benedixt XVI is reminding the pople of the Earth that it is the (Roman) Catholic Church..............and I agree.

Last note: that doesn't mean Catholics are better Christians than Protestants and in fact some of the best Christians I know are not Catholic. And it doesn't mean that God doesn't achieve good through Protestants and Protestantism and its 5,000 worldwide denominations. Just that Jesus established only one Church - not many churches - and if you are curious which one it is it's the one shepherd by the little German guy in Rome and his predecessors going way back to the little Jewish guy named Peter who got the job from Jesus.

P*ssed off with Peter's successor's in the early 1500's a Catholic priest named Martin Luther split and started his own church which has since splintered into thousands of protestant churches - all good people doing good work but nevertheless founded by a disgruntled Catholic priest.

Like wise, a few miles away, a Catholic King, Henry VIII, p*ssed off with the Pope at the time because the Pope would not approve of a divorce for Henry on the weak reasons that his wife wasn't producing a male child and heir to his throne, decided to start his own church called the Church of England (getting his divorce that way) and which has since evolved into the Anglican/Episcopal Communion - again Anglicans and Episcopalians are good people doing good work but nevertheless founded by a King who wanted to legally ditch his wife for a few others (6 in total).

Have I explained things clearly or are readers (1) more confused or (2) just as insulted by the Catholic Church's beliefs about where it came from and what it is and where Protestants came from and what they are not?

Is the "bridge" burned? Well my answer is that a bunch of European Catholics in the early 1500's gave the Church and her Pope the one finger salute and literally did some burning themselves - got some back in return from some fairly nasty Catholics, and we've (Christianity) been wounded and weakened and split ever since - not unlike what the USA would be if 11 of its states were still in rebellion and violently hostile.
 
Last edited:
Like wise, a few miles away, a Catholic King, Henry VIII, p*ssed off with the Pope at the time because the Pope would not approve of a divorce for Henry on the weak reasons that his wife wasn't producing a male child and heir to his throne, decided to start his own church called the Church of England (getting his divorce that way) and which has since evolved into the Anglican/Episcopal Communion - again Anglicans and Episcopalians are good people doing good work but nevertheless founded by a King who wanted to legally ditch his wife for a few others (6 in total).

Have I explained things clearly or are readers (1) more confused or (2) just as insulted by the Catholic Church's beliefs about where it came from and what it is and where Protestants came from and what they are not?

Is the "bridge" burned? Well my answer is that a bunch of European Catholics in the early 1500's gave the Church and her Pope the one finger salute and literally did some burning themselves - got some back in return from some fairly nasty Catholics, and we've (Christianity) been wounded and weakened and split ever since - not unlike what the USA would be if 11 of its states were still in rebellion and violently hostile.

Oh man I read a book about Henry VIII, and three of his wives and I missed that whole church thing...the author sure didn't make it apparant that, THAT is when he established the church.

And about your question, Im just really p*ssed about the whole "we're the only true salvation..." yeah Im sorry but the pope can kiss my ***
 
I dont like the idea of any church or denomination saying that they have the exclusive route to heaven. That is the most disturbing thing to me from this entire post.

On a side note, he brought back the latin mass? Is it that now mass is only in latin? or just some?
 
Last edited:
That's why Man was given the power of thinking and making choices. As Col. David Crockett said, "be sure you're right, then go ahead." In other words go with your convictions and hope you're right, considering the ultimate cost.
 
Make a jotful noise unto the Lord!

If a person is right with God then it doesn't matter what church they attend or (in my opinion) if they even attend church. All that matters is they be kind to their fellow man and animals and pray on a regular basis.

Padre, doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible about the poor man praying in his closet is heard more clearly than the rich man yelling in the temple?

By the way I am agnostic so my religious views may seem a bit skewed to others.
 
Make a jotful noise unto the Lord!

If a person is right with God then it doesn't matter what church they attend or (in my opinion) if they even attend church. All that matters is they be kind to their fellow man and animals and pray on a regular basis.

Padre, doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible about the poor man praying in his closet is heard more clearly than the rich man yelling in the temple?

By the way I am agnostic so my religious views may seem a bit skewed to others.
Sounds about right to me, Marinerhodes...As long as they follow the Golden Rule and follow the Commandments, I care not as to their denomination.
 
I dont even care about that. If they beleive in being a good person, and are religious they are saved. I dont care whether they are Buddhist or Roman Catholic
 
Thanks Padre. Taken in the context as you gave it the Pope's words seem more like what I would have expected. The Media is skewing this to sound like the Pope is saying that Catholics are the only ones going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell.
 
I am waiting to see where this is going. It is not new of course. It has always the case that Rome considered that the only line of succession must be through St Peter and his line. However, all parties have eased their way along with this, perhaps searching to find a way around this obstacle.

However, it is true to say that figures the like of John Paul 11 do not come along frequently. He was a very special man indeed, in all stages of his existence. The world would not have been able to lose him from the stage and not notice his absence for long.

In my opinion, we have not heard the last of John Paul 11, and it is unlikely that his like will be seen again.

When he was alive I once held a poll on a political forum, asking was he the greatest leader in the world. As you can imagine - explosions all round. Eventually however, there turned out to be little negative personal abuse, although no agreement of course.

So to wrap it up I brought it to a conclusion by posting that, while all did not necessarily agree that he was the greatest living leader, we all seemed to agree that he was in the top 1.

I received no objections to that.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to understand or speak Latin or Vaticanese to read the document itself. I recommend reading it rather than relying on filtered musings by secular journalists.

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/20581.php?index=20581<=en#TESTO IN LINGUA INGLESE

The document is one of those that the Vatican issues now and again when anyone in the world sends it questions to answer. It is basically a question and answer format with FIVE questions.

Please note

that it never says, and the Catholic Church has never taught in 2,000 years, that Catholics automatically go to Heaven (they don't and many probably haven't/won't).

that it never says that non-Catholics never get to Heaven (many probably have and will and I believe my late father, RIP, is one of them)

that is doesn't say Catholics are perfect (many are not) and non-Catholics are not (some are).

What it does say is the Jesus created a thing called a "Church," and that Church is 2,000 years old and is the Catholic Church. Also, this Catholic Church has everything that Christ wanted it to have. Nothing is "missing" from it, or has been thrown out by anyone in it that shouldn't be discarded.

On the other hand, the later established or splinter Protestant groups, churches, movements are good people who God loves, saves and works through nevertheless are missing one or more things that Christ's Church shouldn't be missing such as the Eucharist, Pope, sacraments, Virgin Mary, Trinity.

In other words, the Catholic Church is the mothership of Christianity, the original model, the hamburger-with-the-lot. The Protestant churches and non-Catholic religions - all having good aspects and very good people, are nevertheless missing ingrediants or mechanical parts that the Catholic Church has kept and treasured over 2,000 years but which its rebelious daughters have thrown out for whatever reasons - Baptism (Salvation Army), Trinity (Unitarians), the papacy (Greek orthodox), the sacraments and Virgin Mary (Protestants).

Most people, including me, don't care what a person's religion is - although I have no tolerance for Islamists (as you may have guessed). I believe Heaven has plenty of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Jedi Knights, even atheists - but former atheists of course :D

But if you are interested in knowing which Church out of 5,000 Christian Churches is the one Jesus actually started around 30 AD and which has all the stuff he and his apostles made, and which is the original unchanged, undiluted model, then look no further than the Catholic Church. But any good person of any religion can receive God's blessing, guidance and mercy and entry into Heaven but I and other Christians believe that what you'll find there is that Jesus is who we claim him to be and everone now in Heaven knows that if they didn't know it before. Mind you there are plenty of Christians who say you HAVE to know that and believe it BEFORE you die. But I'll leave the question of Purgatory to another day.
:firedevi:
 
Well first of all i have no idea if god exists or not but organised religion i believe has not done humanity a favour . I am not attacking one particular faith because all or most are guilty of it , exploiting people so the individual religion can gain more power ,wealth etc , this surely is against the teaching of christ ? ( iam using christianity as my example )

I also agree with the point that no particular group will go to heaven/hell (if it exist of course)just because what church they happen to be apart off, surely someone is judged on their individual actions rather than what particular building to happen worship in ? ( but maybe iam wrong ??)

I would like to say another reason why iam against ORGANISED religion , is because countries/faiths/individuals use it as a excuse to use aggression ( think of the many wars over religion ) again surely this is against the teaching of christ ???

on a small side note i belive someone can be morally correct and a good person without beliveing in any god/gods .

cheers
 
That's a good fair post, and presents the negatives carefully. I wolud like to gather my thoughts before responding, so as to reply just as carefully.
 
Back
Top