Most of you go to fake churches

[Easy180]

Who knew?

** I proclaim that the churches I lead are the only real churches in the world**

Wow...Someone needs a big serving of a humility sandwich


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.

[Midtowner]

It must be tough to be told you're wrong by someone who is always right

-- I'm relieved to know I attend a real church.

[Dark Jedi]

This claim is no different than ones made daily by every other denomination and religion out there.

[BDP]

Yeah, isn't this the whole reason for missions, crusades, and half of all wars?

It's a rare thing to meet a religious person who doesn't think every other religion is wrong or, in other words, fake.

[SoonerDave]

the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

Interesting...I know of no New Testament scripture that incorporates this requirement as an expression of a church's validity, and certainly not for salvation. The church doesn't save anybody. Christ does. And His body of believers is precisely that church He founded.

-soonerdave

[Midtowner]

Interesting...I know of no New Testament scripture that incorporates this requirement as an expression of a church's validity, and certainly not for salvation. The church doesn't save anybody. Christ does. And His body of believers is precisely that church He founded.

-soonerdave

That all depends on how you define the word "church."

[redland]

It all started with the "chosen people" myth --- maybe even before that. All fundamentalst religions---and Roman Catholicism is certainly one---believe that only they are favored by God and will find salvation. Thankfully there are still some people of faith who believe that whatever force, if any, contols the universe all people are on an equal footing and worthy of respect. Organized religion---the fundamentalist variety---has been responsible for so many of the tragedies in this world. Indeed the present conflict in the Middle East is seen by the Arabs as just a neverending extension of the Crusades when western Christians decided to uproot the Muslims from Jerusalem and in the process slaughtered them all. The history of all three of the major monotheistic religions---Judaism, Christianity, Islam---is littered with barbarities. Get out the history books and check it out.

[itsgallagher]

The document states a means of salvation. This doesn't indicate you can't be saved.

[SoonerDave]

Redland,

I think you might want to clarify your terminology. I don't think Catholics consider themselves a "chosen" people in the context you describe.

Judaism would, by contrast, claim their identity as God's chosen people, but chosen not merely for arbitrary favor but as the people through which He would provide His plan of redemption for mankind in Christ.

Interestingly enough, Christianity would most closely meet your definition of a faith that treats everyone on an "equal footing" and "worthy of repsect." Regardless of race, creed, income background, family origin, history, political favor, you stand on your own with what you choose to do about Christ.

The conflict in the Middle East goes back well beyond the Crusades, but to the point wherein Isaac - Abraham's first-born by his wife, and Ishmael - his first born by his wife's handmaid became enemies as to the inheritance God promised to Abraham, and subsequently to Isaac. Ishmael, which carries a biblical translation of "pariah" and (in some contexts) "wild man" is generally considered to be the father of the nations that presently align themselves as Islamics, and (at least in part) have been taught they were "robbed" of their birthright that Isaac received.

-soonerdew

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Interestingly enough, Christianity would most closely meet your definition of a faith that treats everyone on an "equal footing" and "worthy of repsect." Regardless of race, creed, income background, family origin, history, political favor, you stand on your own with what you choose to do about Christ.

HAHAHAHA!

Tell that to a gay couple or an Atheist.

[SoonerDave]

Given that I assume there are some of both of those groups on this board, I suspect I have.

And I'll reaffirm that statement, too - each and every person stands absolutely on their own about what they choose to do about Christ.

-soonerdave

[itsgallagher]

Uh no. Not even close. If someone is taught something different or is infulenced to think or believe something wrong, their accountability is not totally their own.

[Easy180]

itgallagher....I think he is just talking about those who grow up in a majority Christian society

The other few billion people get a free pass since they really have no access to information or teachings that would let them decide how they view the lord

[Midtowner]

oops

[itsgallagher]

I am talking about christian as well as non-christian. For example; if you grew up listening to and following Joel Osteen you may not be held totally accountable for your transgressions.

[SoonerDave]

The other few billion people get a free pass since they really have no access to information or teachings that would let them decide how they view the lord

That would be correct if God were merely someone who worked at an intellectual capacity, but He's drastically beyond that. As the Author of creation, He created us for the purpose of worshipping and fellowshipping with Him, and every person on the face of the earth has a desire - whether they admit or realize it - to fulfill that base desire. If you've ever heard the phrase "there's a God-shaped hole in your heart," that's precisely what's being described - that inward yearning, what some people call that "sense of something missing" in their lives.

It is true that there are some peoples that have never heard about Christ. That's why the evangelization of the Gospel is so urgent, because it is that very message that allows people to find that path back to God, to satisfy that yearning. It is a horrible abuse of Christianity to have leveraged it as a justification for the Crusades, or for any justification that says "believe in Christ or I will kill you." The Biblical direction about preaching is to do just that: preach the Word, and if people don't believe, kick the dust off your feet and move on. While I have made no bones about my faith in Christ here in various topics on this forum, it is also my hope that I have avoided any kinds of arguments and fights about it, because those fights become intellectual very rapidly, not spiritual, and just end up getting people angry. If the message of Christ makes someone angry, there's not much I can do about that.

All I, or any Christian can do, is to put the word of Christ out there. I can't force anyone to believe it.

I just know there are lots and lots of people who have accumulated wealth, accomplished great earthly things, but still feel an emptiness. That emptiness can be filled with a redemptive relationship and acceptance of Christ. And in this era of diversity and equality, there's no small irony to me in that each and every person that has ever lived, or ever will live, regardless of wealth, fame, power, position, political standing, social respect, or earthly accomplishment shall be judged on the basis of their response to that simple question: what have you done about Christ?

For example; if you grew up listening to and following Joel Osteen you may not be held totally accountable for your transgressions.

Respectfully disagree. You will not be able to stand before God and blame Joel Osteen for your transgressions. Each person stands alone before God, and only the blood of Christ can cover those transgressions.

-soonerdave

[El Gato Pollo Loco!!!]

So wait, is the pope saying that I shouldn't eat at Church's because they use fake chickens?

Oh wait, never mind....

[Easy180]

So it's up to Mustafa and Mr. and Mrs. Nguyen who were raised as and surrounded by Muslims and Buddhists to somehow figure out that their religion is crap and the white guy in a suit knocking on their door has it all figured out?...I'm thinking the success rate is pretty low for that sort of thing

Just as you would do if a Muslim came to you trying to get you to convert

Yes Gato...The pope is actually a majority owner in KFC...His announcement doesn't surprise me one bit

[Midtowner]

So it's up to Mustafa and Mr. and Mrs. Nguyen who were raised as and surrounded by Muslims and Buddhists to somehow figure out that their religion is crap and the white guy in a suit knocking on their door has it all figured out?...I'm thinking the success rate is pretty low for that sort of thing

Just as you would do if a Muslim came to you trying to get you to convert

Yes Gato...The pope is actually a majority owner in KFC...His announcement doesn't surprise me one bit

Actually, Catholicism does not teach that you have to be Baptized, or even Christian in order for salvation. I do believe that clearly sets us apart from most other Christian sects.

[El Gato Pollo Loco!!!]

...Yes Gato...The pope is actually a majority owner in KFC...His announcement doesn't surprise me one bit

Well that explains everything completely! I knew that KFC/LJS/Taco Bell/Pizza Hut/A&W were in cahoots with someone!

[bombermwc]

Yet another reason why I think Catholocism is a joke.

[Martin]

catholicism does not teach that you have to be baptized, or even christian in order for salvation.

ehh? proof or it didn't happen. while i won't deny the likelihood of some catholic sects taking this position, i find it hard to believe that this is the official position of the catholic church.

-M

[Midtowner]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the official source of any church position)

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

[Martin]

ok... i see what angle you're coming from now.

that's not to say that the church's official position is that anybody can be saved, christian or otherwise, but that a 'good' person who is ignorant of the church can attain salvation. by extension, a 'good' person who is aware of the catholic church but chooses not to follow it would not be saved. to apply the passage provided to the statement you're refuting, only those muslims or buddhists who are unaware of catholicism would be saved... not just any devout muslim or buddhist.

as per baptism, the passage provided pertains strictly to children who have died without being baptized, not to the average believer. furthermore, the passage doesn't strictly state that unbaptized children are without a doubt saved but only allows the hope for such an outcome based on the mercy of god.

i would argue that catholicism does, in fact, teach that christian faith and baptism are requirements of salvation, but it does provide some exceptions to that rule.

-M

[Midtowner]

.. and based upon your interpretation of the catechism, particularly, the word "aware," you can arrive at a lot of different conclusions regarding who, according to the Catholic Church is "saved" and who is not.

I would count aware as being much different than being simply vaguely aware that there is a Catholic Church. I would think it would mean that you are aware of at least a basic idea of what the Church stands for, what it believes in, etc. Ghandi, for example, though he knew of the Pope, he was most definitely not a Catholic. It is said that Ghandi was a very good man.

I do not think that Ghandi had the opportunity to study the Catholic church or to join the Catholoc faith. Even if he had, he may have very well hindered his ability to do a lot of good in his country. I think that the doctrine shows that the Church would believe that would Ghandi have had a real opportunity to do so, he would have converted.

While you're reading the doctrine very conservatively, I tend to liberally construe passages such as that as I find the alternative difficult to agree with.