News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Prometheus The Supremo

►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5
first allowing the re installment of the latin mass (because people can't question what they don't understand) and now this.........


Catholicism only true church: Pope


Jul 10, 2007 09:01 AM
NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press

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.

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.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul – a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

_____________________________________________________________


this will cause soo many devisions amongst the christians that i wouldn't be surprised if ireland starts to erupt into catholic vs. protestant violence again.

this are the seeds of future conflicts my friends.
 
It's hardly just the Catholics. Any religion will claim that they are the only real religion. It's what they do! Do you expect them to say "this is what we believe and we're right! And this is what they believe and they're right, too!"? In a cynical way of looking at it, it's simple competition.
 
What I find more disturbing is Ratzinger's approval of the old-style Latin masses and his moves to back away from Vatican II, which brought the Catholic Church into the 19th century. This decree is just one additional, albeit small, backing away from it.
 
It's hardly just the Catholics. Any religion will claim that they are the only real religion. It's what they do! Do you expect them to say "this is what we believe and we're right! And this is what they believe and they're right, too!"? In a cynical way of looking at it, it's simple competition.
As a religious person, I say that my religion is what I believe and is right for me. That's as far as I take it, and I have no right or inclination to tell others that they're wrong. Don't forget, it's not up to us to judge, if others (or myself) are wrong, we'll be duly judged after we die, provided my belief in God and the a day of judgement is correct.

Actually, while I'm in no hurry to expire, I am very curious of what happens after we die. I can see myself as an 90+ year old (if I'm lucky to live that long, with all my marbles) being quite anticipatory of the next journey.
 
As a religious person, I say that my religion is what I believe and is right for me. That's as far as I take it, and I have no right or inclination to tell others that they're wrong. Don't forget, it's not up to us to judge, if others (or myself) are wrong, we'll be duly judged after we die, provided my belief in God and the a day of judgement is correct.

It's great that we live in a place and a time that tolerance is the majority accepted belief; such a positive change from what existed for centuries until only a few decades ago (and is certainly still common among many people). But when it comes to religious leaders who have to deal with questions about their religion every day of their lives as part of their jobs, it's only natural that any church will assert the correctness of their beliefs above all others (or else why would they believe it?). Any religious organisation could have released a statement like the Catholics recently released and it never would have been noticed. The only reason this was noted as because it was the monolithic Catholic church with its central hierarchy.
 
admiral, if god is chinese, you're in big shit! :p

and i wouldn't be surprised since the most populous country is china.
 
It's great that we live in a place and a time that tolerance is the majority accepted belief; such a positive change from what existed for centuries until only a few decades ago (and is certainly still common among many people). But when it comes to religious leaders who have to deal with questions about their religion every day of their lives as part of their jobs, it's only natural that any church will assert the correctness of their beliefs above all others (or else why would they believe it?). Any religious organisation could have released a statement like the Catholics recently released and it never would have been noticed. The only reason this was noted as because it was the monolithic Catholic church with its central hierarchy.


the problem with the catholic church is its view that it has to dictate and control everyones personal lives and the fact that it interferes with politics.


the only reason the catholic church is as powerful as it is today is because of all of the forced conversions that happened in the past. it wasn't that long ago where you would be killed if you were against the church. during the italian unification, garibaldi sought to limit the tyranny of the church and reduced its land holdings and authority to a minimal level. then in the 1900's, something really bad happened. Mussolini came to power, made catholicism the state religion of italy and made the vatican its own city state. the pope would also bless soldiers before they went off to africa and kill in the name of fascism. it wasn't 'till the 1980's the the state religion was abolished.

the catholic church seeks to dominate everyones personal lives. they make themselves out to be the victim (in relation to historical events) when the fact is that the catholic church has and had soo much influence, it could have prevented many disasters like the holocaust. but i don't blame catholicism for the total responsibility of the holocaust, the other half of the problem was protestantism & the antisemitic writings of martin luther. the holocaust was a mass consensus of religious folk exerting their power.
 
The Catholic church doesn't seem to be intolerant of good design though - as John Pawson's austerely beautiful Cistercian monastery at Novy Dvur proves.

The Cistercians were minimalists from their beginnings in the late 11th century when they reacted against the excesses of Cluny; their abbeys reflect those values. Throughout history, minimalists have been obliged make house calls and administer built enemas to flush out centuries of accumulated doodad buildup. We live in such an age now, though the decorative Modernism of the starchitects and the cheddingtonista movement might augur the onset of a new furring of the pipes.
 
the holocaust was a mass consensus of religious folk exerting their power.

No, it wasn't. It was due to Nazism, a nationalist movement that in many ways was paganistic in nature and seeked to usurp religion.
 
No, it wasn't. It was due to Nazism, a nationalist movement that in many ways was paganistic in nature and seeked to usurp religion.

you are wrong. the only way hitler had such influence was by appealing to the populations core values. hitler was as charismatic as a televangelist. yes, he used propaganda, fear, etc. but it was his connecting with the people that progressed his plan.

it was soo well known that at the nazi war crime trials, "being forced" could not be used as an excuse for ones actions.


here, have a read...

The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=paul_23_4
 
And, of course, the current pope participated in the Holocaust by guarding a factory staffed by slave labour. Such a Christian act.
 
the problem with the catholic church is its view that it has to dictate and control everyones personal lives and the fact that it interferes with politics.

In an open society anyone who shows up can participate. So yes, Catholics will "interfere" with politics. But then by that line of reasoning, so does every other religious belief and political ideology.
 

Back
Top