Comments

corporal works of mercy do matter, or so I'm told.

How is it possible that you are writing about Christianity and lack even a basic understanding of religion? You might want to consider learning a little about a subject before deciding to adopt it as a belief system and dedicating your life to it. "As if Jesus and Allah are one and the same". Allah is the exact same being as God in Christianity and God in Judaism. Jesus is Jesus in Islam he is not however considered the son of God. That is one of the essential difference in the religions. Please, please take some time to educate yourself.

Very positive attitude! Yes, dialogue has to continue. I do side with pope Benedict XVI, still, I applaud your view on the matter.

If you look at history, the Roman church is responsible for significant violence and bloodshed. This document is entirely
consistent with that history.

It's fine that the Pope pointed out the differences, but he could have found a better way to say it. At least he was nicer to us Protestants than he was to the Muslims.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I am not surprised at the latest out of the Roman Pope. For years, many Orthodox have referred to the Roman Church as, "the first Protestants." In 1054. another Roman Pope decided to push forth his dubious claims of universal hegemony by excommunicating the rest of the Church. To press home his position, this Pope declared that the original text of the Nicene Creed was defective. In contradiction to the words of the Evangelist John, this Pope decided, on his own, that the rest of the Church should accept the view that the Holy Spirit arises not out of the Father alone but out of the Son as well.

I don't know how many times Western Christians have told me that the issue of the fileoque is an arcane theological point that should not stand in the way of union. Sorry but it does because it goes straight to the heart of whether or not we believe in one Triune God. Simply put the fileoque presumes that the Father had to beget the Son before the two of them could together beget the Spirit, that puts not the Father at the center of the Trinity but the Son as well. Instead of one God, the fileoque espouses two co-equal Gods. Maybe this is not such an arcane issue after all.

In his excellent book, "From Apostles to Bishops," Francis A. Sullivan, a Jesuit, has shown conclusively that the idea of apostolic succession originated with St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century, but not as a guarantee of the authenticity of the Eucharist but rather as a guarantee of the authenticity of the Faith the Church preached. The Orthodox have always understood that succession is not simply a succession of bishops but rather a succession that passes through the entire priesthood of believers and is reflected in the preservation of the Apostolic Faith through the authority of its bishops. No, it is not the Eastern churches that are lacking in something. It is Rome that is lacking. Beginning with the fileoque, it has gone on from one heresy to another, papal infalibilty, indulgences, the exposition of the Host, the Immaculate Conception to name but a few.

Many of us Orthodox have long seen Rome as the main obstruction to Christian unity. All the rest of us Christians can do is pray that one day a Roman Pope will use his "infallible authority" to declare that that authority is nothing but a bunch of nonsense, In the meantime, Christian unity is more likely to be achieved between the Protestant West and the Orthodox East if they keep working on it together. Having been raised as a Lutheran I can tell you that Protestants have much more in common with the Orthodox than they ever have had with Rome. They are not only united in the use of the vernacular and married clergy , but even more importantly they are united on the indisputable authority of the Bible and not the authority of individual men claiming to be God's representative on earth..

great stuff, well said.

Patrick:
Dig a little deeper and you will discover that the Catholic position agrees with the Orthodox on the procession of the Spirit. The Filioque was an attempt by a local church to prevent heresy that caught on in the West. Tomorrow the pope could dispense with it. A primacy of honor is meaningless. Do you think honor was the concern of the Apostolic Church? On the other hand, a Primacy of jurisdiction, rooted in love, service, unity, and guidance would be highly meaningful. Consider the possibility.

I'm afraid the Pope doesn't have the Bible on his side in this matter.

I think the Pope is well supported by scripture, tradition and is settled and secure in these things.

There will be never be union between the Protestants and the Holy Orthodox Church. The Protestants are essentially the reverse face of the same coin which includes the Roman Catholics. Until they dispense with their own heresies, most of which are knee-jerk reactions to the heresies that Rome proffered during the Middle Ages, and embrace the fulness of the faith as expressed and taught by the Orthodox there can be no reunion nor should there be.

Charles Gregersen wrote:

"Protestants have much more in common with the Orthodox than they ever have had with Rome. They are not only united in the use of the vernacular and married clergy , but even more importantly they are united on the indisputable authority of the Bible and not the authority of individual men claiming to be God's representative on earth.."

Charles, Christ gave His power and authority to His Apostles after His resurrection: "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations.... (Matt. 28:17). He gave Peter the "keys" to His Kingdom, denoting succession and the power to bind and loose. Christ never instructed the Apostles to write anything but to forgive sins, anoint, baptize and eat His Body and drink His Blood.

1 Tim 3:15 doesn't teach that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth but that the Church is. Which "church" if not Christ's? "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build MY Church (not "churches)". Nowhere does the Bible give itself the honor of having "indisputable authority". It does warn against individual interpretation: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)". The Bible came from the Church and She alone has the authority to interpret it.

Oh no, another Protestant convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

"For years, many Orthodox have referred to the Roman Church as, "the first Protestants.""

Then you admit that many Eastern Orthodox have a pretty thin and uninformed understanding of the Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches.

"Many of us Orthodox have long seen Rome as the main obstruction to Christian unity."

Then by all means join up with the Protestants and make it official. Leave Rome out of it, please.

"In the meantime, Christian unity is more likely to be achieved between the Protestant West and the Orthodox East if they keep working on it together. Having been raised as a Lutheran I can tell you that Protestants have much more in common with the Orthodox than they ever have had with Rome."

That is true, Eastern Orthodoxy is perhaps more "Protestant" (i.e. anti-Catholic) in that way. Thanks for making that perfectly clear for me. Only I doubt many Eastern Orthodox would hold Lutheranism and Protestantism in as high esteem as you seem to - or hold out hope of union with Lutherans.
==

Pope in St. Peter’s Square, September 20 , 2006:

"I hope that on different occasions during my visit … my profound respect for the great religions, and in particular for the Moslems, who 'adore the one God' and with whom we are engaged in 'defending and promoting together, for all men, social justice, moral values, peace and freedom' (Nostra Aetate, 3) was clearly apparent."

Ah, not to put too fine a point on it, but you gotta love multiculturalism, which the pope has obviously adopted hook, line and sinker. He says Moslems "adore the one true God" and yet hammers the Protestants. What a world.

Charles Gregersen:

You must know little to nothing about the very basics of Eastern Orthodox theology.

Every doctrine for which Protestants have "beef" with Catholicism (with the sole exception of the doctrines of papal primacy of jurisdiction and papal infallibility) is shared with the Eastern Orthodox.

"[T]he use of the vernacular and married clergy" are mere matters of ritual and discipline, and even then you overstate the similarities with Protestantism. For one thing, many Orthodox churches do not employ strict vernacular in their liturgies; rather, they use an older form of the current vernacular. You ever heard of Old Church Slavonic? As well, are you aware that Orthodox bishops may not marry, and that Orthodox priests, once ordained, may never contract marriage thereafter? What Protestant church do you know which forbids ordained priests from marrying, and only chooses its higher clergy from among the celibate?

You also write, "they are united on the indisputable authority of the Bible and not the authority of individual men claiming to be God's representative on earth".

Geez-loweez! Are you aware that Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach sola scriptura?! You ever heard of Holy Tradition? Further, are you aware that the Orthodox Church teaches that the Church is infallible, and that the bishops collectively exercise infallibility at Ecumenical Councils?

The ONLY Protestant sect(s) for whom your statement applies would be Anglo-Catholicism. Even then, I know of know Anglican-offshoot which forbids priests from marrying, and only chooses its bishops from among the celibate.

Charles Gregersen:

You must know little to nothing about the very basics of Eastern Orthodox theology.

Every doctrine for which Protestants have "beef" with Catholicism (with the sole exception of the doctrines of papal primacy of jurisdiction and papal infallibility) is shared with the Eastern Orthodox.

"[T]he use of the vernacular and married clergy" are mere matters of ritual and discipline, and even then you overstate the similarities with Protestantism. For one thing, many Orthodox churches do not employ strict vernacular in their liturgies; rather, they use an older form of the current vernacular. You ever heard of Old Church Slavonic? As well, are you aware that Orthodox bishops may not marry, and that Orthodox priests, once ordained, may never contract marriage thereafter? What Protestant church do you know which forbids ordained priests from marrying, and only chooses its higher clergy from among the celibate?

You also write, "they are united on the indisputable authority of the Bible and not the authority of individual men claiming to be God's representative on earth".

Geez-loweez! Are you aware that Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach sola scriptura?! You ever heard of Holy Tradition? Further, are you aware that the Orthodox Church teaches that the Church is infallible, and that the bishops collectively exercise infallibility at Ecumenical Councils?

The ONLY Protestant sect(s) for whom your statement applies would be Anglo-Catholicism. Even then, I know of know Anglican-offshoot which forbids priests from marrying, and only chooses its bishops from among the celibate.

Oh, and Eastern Orthodoxy holds to a "Catholic" ecclesiology insofar as they believe that theirs is the one true Church. Eastern Orthodox consider heretical the belief that the Church of Christ consists collectively of all Christian denominations; they also reject the "branch theory" of Anglo-Catholicism, whereby the true Church is split among Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans.

This is absurd!! I'm a 100% true-blue Protestant and therefore have some disagreements with Catholic teachings, but I firmly believe, and Scripture backs me up on this, that Catholics and Orthodox Christians are every bit as valid as Protestants. To point fingers and say, "Catholicism is the true faith," or "Orthodoxy is better," is absurd and playing right into Satan's hands. Satan desperately does not want Christians united. Put aside your petty differences and work on spreading the Kingdom as Christ demanded.

Patricia:

I understand you not agreeing with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I beleive some understanding is in order.

1) Was Saint Paul being "divisive" and "playing into Satan's hands" when he condemned CHRISTIANS of his day who were teaching (to his standards) false doctrine; e.g. Gnostics and Judaizers? What about Arians? They beleive Jesus is Lord and is their Savior. Why isn't their Christianity okay?

2) Keep in mind that, from Catholicism's standpoint, Protestantism is in the same position as any of the other numerous heretical sects (Judaizewrs, Gnostics, Montanists, Seballianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, etc.) that have appeared and died out throughout history.

This is not uncharitable; it's historical fact. The idea that the church is spread out among different denominations with drastically different beliefs, different forms and theology of worship, and a disprate leadership is not the belief of the historic Christian Church. It's a belief that arose in the 16th century, and even today is a belief held by a small minorityof Christians.

You are well aware, aren't you, that Protestants are in the Christian minority? Catholics themselves include more than hald of all Christians. Add to them the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches and you're vastly outnumbered.

Obviously, this does not (in itself) make Protestantism false. There is much that is good and true in Protestantism (depending on the sect). But keep in mind that your conception of what Christianity is, and what the Bible has to say for these things, has no precedent in orthodox Christianity before the 16th century, and even today is a minority position.

Protestants need to be a bit more humble before they mindlessly attack the historic doctrines of the Christian churches.

Eric,

I think when we all get to Heaven, we're going to be shocked not at how right our flavor of Christianity is, but at how much each flavor has gotten wrong. My point is that we all argue over who's on first and not on how can we best live out Christ's teachings. We've got major movements on various issues, for example the Reform movement with its Calvinist teachings, but no major movements on how we can best serve the poor and love each other. Those should be the major issues, not I'm better than you, there are more like me than like you, etc. Sorry, I don't give a flying flip how many there are in each type of Christianity. I'm just glad there are followers of Christ! I personally don't have a problem with different types of Christianity. I think different people need different things. I personally would not fit in with a Pentacostal denomination, yet others really need a more charismatic environment.

As for different types of Christians having different teachings, that is a problem and stems from our humanness and a lack of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church has much good about it, yet can't claim superiority here. Catholicism has had its share of false teachings too. Now, I know that's fighting words to you and a lot of others, but there you have it. Our yelling at each other isn't going to solve anything. All we can do is go about serving God and let him take care of the rest.

As I type this, I can't help but wonder if Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. have such different perspectives that we think we're talking about the same things yet maybe we aren't. I keep reading about the importance of historical Christianity. To a Protestant, that isn't as important, or important at all, as it is to other Christians. I'm not putting down the emphasis on history; I'm just saying that maybe we need to work to understand each other better so we can at least be on the same page when we talk. Just a thought.

Chris:

Which Protestant church? Arminian Protestants have a soteriology which, while typically non-sacramental is close of not exactly the same as that held by Catholicism and Orthodoxy (i.e. the traditional Christian teaching on the subject).

Patricia:

You have to understand why Protestantism's theological relativism simply cannot be accepted by the Catholic or the Orthodox. Christianity is important simply because the true Church today has to be the same Church that's existed in centuries past. The church is not extrinsic to Christianity, something we create by our consensus on what the Bible teaches, reinventing the wheel every generation and forming a new denomination accordingly.

What is true today is true in every century. If a church is not "historic" it simply can't be true; it will be (by its' founders' own admission) an invention of the person that created it.

Oops! Made some major typos! Please disregard the above! It should read:

Chris:

Which Protestant church? Arminian Protestants have a soteriology which, while typically non-sacramental is close, [perhaps even identical, to that held by Catholicism and Orthodoxy (i.e. the traditional Christian teaching on the subject).

Patricia:

You have to understand why Protestantism's theological relativism simply cannot be accepted by the Catholic or the Orthodox. Historicity is important simply because the true Church today has to be the same Church that's existed in centuries past. The church is not extrinsic to Christianity, something we create by our consensus on what the Bible teaches, reinventing the wheel every generation and forming a new denomination accordingly.

What is true today is true in every century. If a church is not "historic" it simply can't be true; it will be (by its' founders' own admission) an invention of the person that created it.

this will get people riled up.

Pope's comments irrelevant to non-Catholics
By Roland S. Martin
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/martin/index.html

From that link:

"[The Pope] refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission."

Interestingly, this is the same argument those in favor of same-sex marriage use: "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality! Obviously it wasn't important to him!"

It seems a lot of people don't take John 21:25 very seriously.

News flash: Pope believes Catholicism to be true!

Why is this news in the first place? I'm guessing that this is not for the rest of the world so much as it is for Catholics who, like my mother-in-law, think that the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church has backed off on their claims to be the one true Church and the fullness of the faith. This underlines for them, "No, we actually still believe that."

The nice, warm, fuzzy, equivocal, ecumenical mush of "all the Christian 'flavors' have some of it right and some of it wrong" is the inevitable terminus of Protestant thinking. The simple fact is, the only good reason to be Roman Catholic *or* Eastern Orthodox is that you believe their claims to be absolutely true. In other words, it has to be the answer to the question, "Where is the Church?" not the answer to to questions like "Who has the best liturgy? Who has the best food on Easter? Where are my emotional needs met?" Otherwise you're saddling yourself with a lot of ecclesial baggage that, if you don't genuinely buy, you're going to resent down the road.

Speaking as an Orthodox, I would *hope* that the Pope of all people believes the Roman Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of the faith and is willing to affirm that publicly. Having the cards (and the guns) on the table makes talking a lot easier.

Richard

Count another one in who thinks that diversity in liturgy and theology are important. I love attending Catholic mass once or twice a year even though I can't partake of the eucharist. As a person who makes his home in a Protestant denomination, I think there is much we can learn from the Catholic tradition and I appreciate so much the contributions it has made to our culture. I concur with Patricia's comments--what is more important is that we strive to live out Christ's teachings rather than go on and on about how our particular tradition or theology is "right."

A couple items to chew on here, Eric: 1) Didn't Jesus criticize the Pharisees over their insistence on theological and traditional purity? Didn't St. Peter of all people challenge the rigidness of the prevailing doctrine when he established the Church? 2) Don't forget that if Luther hadn't been so bold as to challenge the claim of the One True Church, there would have been no counter-reformation. Would you really like your church to be the way it was during Luther's time? Just as Prostestants ought to be grateful to the Catholic tradition for preserving the canon for all those centuries, Catholics ought to be grateful for the Protestant reformation for giving impetus to the Catholic church to clean up and, by the modern day diversity of Christian churches, helping to make sure that the Catholic church does not fall into such a state again.

So let's just all co-exist and agree-to-disagree, eh?

Patrick:

I hope it goes without saying that we can have our differences while still rejoicing in what we have in common, and fostering fellowship on a Christian and human level. All of my best friends are Protestant; having grown up in a Protestant nation, I cannot help but have a deep love and admiration for the religious tradition which gave us the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, C. S. Lewis, John Wesley, 'Pilgrim's Progress", Gulliver's Travels, T.S. Elliott, etc. (and "Christianity Today", for that matter!)

Your questions:

"Didn't Jesus criticize the Pharisees over their insistence on theological and traditional purity?"

He criticized the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and their scrupulosity when it came to fulfilling the letter (and not the spirit) of the Torah. Jesus himself insisted that His teachings be followed in all their entirety (Matthew 19:19 for example). Exhortations to this effect abound in the Epistles, too.

"2) Don't forget that if Luther hadn't been so bold as to challenge the claim of the One True Church, there would have been no counter-reformation."

God always brings good out of evil. The Judaizers set in motion the controversies which result in the Apostles clarifying the place of the Torah in relation to Christianity, and it was in response to the Gnostics that the Church developed her canon and her creeds.

But I do not believe that objective evils (heresy and schism) can themselves be justified for the good they caused in spite of themselves.

I do hope that last sentence is read in light of what I wrote in the first paragraph. My love for who and what Protestantism has bequeathed to the world is sincere, not an ecumenical smoke-screen.

Eric, your considerate and carefully thought-out remarks throughout this thread are much appreciated. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that the Reformation was fundamentally evil, even though God used it for good. It seems that your basis for this idea rests in biblical passages regarding the unity of the church. Fine enough, but is it not possible that Christ may have meant the worldwide body of believers rather than one institutional body? My reason for saying this is that if the Bible equates church unity with unity under one institution, then surely there would have been some passage somewhere about the Pope, rules governing papal succession and other references as to how this institutional Church is to be organized. The fact that the Roman Catholic church was the first church does not convince me that schism from that institution (as opposed to schism from the Christian faith) is necessarily evil, especially when the schism was caused by a good-faith effort to follow Christ's exhortation to follow the teachings in their entirety.

Within the protestant tradition, I find a richness in the diversity of churches, liturgies and theological traditions. My faith is strengthened by periodically visiting a Catholic mass, a Quaker silent meeting, a charismatic church, a high liturgy church, etc. My appreciation for this doesn't come out of a desire to be PC or multicultural, but from a realization that the Christian truth has many facets and we are imperfect humans who understand it in different ways.

I agree with the Pope. As a Catholic I have no problem with what he says, he is only repeating what the Church has said since the Reformation. As a convert to the Church from the Evangelical tradition, it makes more sense.

And the Protestant Churches have said the same thing as the Catholic, only more quietly and in more actions. If they did not, then why do Protestants, especially Evangelicals continue to send "missionaries" to South America and other Catholic countries. We don't need them. They are in fact needed in the Muslim, Hindu and Buddist parts of the world. By sending "missionaries" to South America, it only enforces the idea that Evangelicals don't consider the Catholic Church legitimate.

So the Protestant world should be very careful not to point fingers!

Brad

I can relate to what you're saying, Brad, if the primary purpose of those missionaries is to convert Latin American Catholics to Protestantism. And unfortuantely I'm sure that's often the case. However, many other church organizations have missions programs that focus on providing aid and assistance to poor countries. If the Lutheran World Relief Committee or the Mennonite Disaster Committee sends folks down to Paraguay to respond to a flood or an earthquake, I hope their motives won't be looked at with suspicion just because they are Protestant.

Anyway, don't feel too bad. I recall hearing a few years ago of an American Bible college sending students to proselytize in Scotland. Protestant missionaries to Scotland!

Imagine any denomination that would admit, "We don't teach truth." Any denomination that won't say what the Vatican said (and it was Archbishop Levada who wrote this piece, not the pope) should be ashamed of itself. Or should it?

A Protestant missionary once told me she was preaching against "voodoo" in a country where I knew it didn't exist. She later said she was referring to the Catholic Church. Who among us is ashamed by that remark?

The truth is that the Holy Spirit is the Source of truth for all humanity since Pentecost. He speaks through Scripture, He speaks through the Catholic Church and He speaks through other denominations. But the truth is that, after 2,000 years, in our fallen human nature, we Christians still presume to know what truth is by enshrining it in what we call a denomination, a church, a doctrine or whatever. The truth is that some of the truth that He speaks through any of the three main strains of Christ's Church - Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox - is ignored or rejected by the other two. The truth is, we all need to confess: I am ignorant, Lord. Teach me Truth by getting me to recognize it in the voice of Your church, not mine. The truth is, we should all be ashamed of ourselves for not confessing our ignorance because that is the only thing that unites us.

Patrick:

This thread is not the place to debate the truth of Catholic Christianity; there's so much to go into, we'd really have to focus on one topic at a time.

It does not stand to reason that every essential Christian doctrine will be explicitly noted in the Scripture. As I'm sure you well know, Catholics do make a Biblical case for the institution of the papacy and the episcopacy, as well as the visible and hierarchical nature of Christ's Church.

We also acknowledge that there is development of doctrine and especially in the externals of the true Church. Teachings which are implicit become explicit; debates become settled; and the Church find better ways to articulate what she has always believed. The development of Trinitarian dogma and Christology is a prime example of this.

We would further argue that Protestantism is not an organic development of the primitive faith of the Church; instead, it is a repudiation of virtually everything that went before. This is a very broad assertion, and it'd have to be nuanced depending on which Protestant sect we're talking about.

I completely agree with the Pope when he said, in his first papal visit to Germany, that a return to the Catholic fold would not entail (on the part of Protestants) a repudiation of all that is good, true, and beautiful in Protestantism, even if these are post-Reformation developments.

I'm a better Catholic for my interactions and fellowship with Protestants. I don't mean this in a negative sense--that my encounter with "heretics" has confirmed my knowledge of the error of their ways and the truth of mine. Not at all! I've come to understand Christianity better through these interactions, through the singing of beautiful Protestant hymnody, Protestant devotional literature, Biblical commentary, etc. And the sheer witness that practicing, orthodox Protestants give to the Word of God as contained in Scripture; I'll say it: I'm a thousand times more edified (intellectually by the sermons in conservative Protestant churches than I am at the overwhelming majority of Catholic homilies on a given Sunday.

One reason I desire corporate reunion of orthodox Protestants with Catholicism is so that these "Protestant" charisms might be (re)introduced into Catholicism on a wide scale!

"I can relate to what you're saying, Brad, if the primary purpose of those missionaries is to convert Latin American Catholics to Protestantism."

This manifestly is the goal of most of the conservative Protestant missions to these countries, especially Fundamentalist Evangelicals.

I don't believe this would apply to mainstream Protestants (e.g. liberal Lutherans and Methodists), denominations which are very relativist in their theology to begin with equate evangelization with ministering to mens' stomachs and other material needs. (I should note that many Catholic organizations have adopted a similar relativistic theology of missionary work.)

I would like to note, the claim of "authority" of the Pope and by extension Roman Catholics as being the only true "church" is based on a particular interpreatation of a specific passage.

"and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

I would ask, what evidence do we have that the particular interpreatation of Roman Catholics is the correct one? Is it not possible how this passage has been interpreted by Roman Catholics be incorrect? How can that not be possible? Roman Catholics, were and are human, therefore fallen and imperfect. We see throughout the Old and New Testament those who follow God misunderstanding and misapplying what is taught by God. Does this make Truth irrelavent? NO! God's Universal and Absolute Truth is still relevant. And we all should do our best in understanding and following that Truth. HOWEVER, we must all keep in mind, the possibilty that in some way, each and every one of us has errored in our understanding of God's Truth. No one denomination or person can claim with absolute certainty that they are the only ones who understand God's Truth correctly. We can believe in how we understand God's Truth to be correct, but we should respect when there is a reasonable difference of understanding.

And that is what I find at issue with the Pope's statement. The Pope shows no respect to non-Catholic interpretations by declaring Roman Catholics are the only ones belonging to the True Church. That we are somehow "missing" something, non-catholics are not "complete" in our Faith.

I will respect Roman Catholic's and their doctrines when they apply it to themselves, but draw a line with them, or any othe denomination making absolute claims on what God's Truth is. No one can do that, except God Himself.

I will leave you with an example of where the Roman Catholics claimed their understanding of God's Truth was the only Truth, and could not be in error. For many centuries, Roman Catholics insisted the earth was the center of the universe, because that is what the Bible said. It was based on Scripture the Roman Catholic's claimed, and anyone proclaiming otherwise was a heretic and was persecuted. When Galileo suggested and started to prove with scientific observation (which today can NOT be disputed when it pertains to this specific issue) that the earth was not at the center of the universe, he was persecuted by the Roman Catholics. Capernicus never published his findings while he was alive for fear of also being presecuted. Obviously the Roman Catholics were wrong then. Why is it not possible, on this issue of "authority" and papal succession, and Roman Catholicism the only True Church, is also in error?

Ken L.

Ken:

A Catholic would argue that none of his beliefs are based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible (inspired by God, of course) is based on the Church's beliefs.

Of course, we would argue that God himself has founded one church, in effect declaring her to be "true" by the very act of her founding.

Eric,

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? If true, and in no way am I conceding it is true by asking this, if true, then how do we know the Church's beliefs are correct in the first place?

To Catholics, the Bible must not be the Living Word then?

Ken L.

Eric, again I appreciate your contributions to this thread--I'm learning a lot. I think the crux of the disagreement here is how we define "truth" and "relativism." I believe that the Catholic Church has the Truth, while I disagree with the Pope's claim that the Catholic Church *exclusively* has the Truth. Your writing seems to suggest that to acknowledge the Catholic Church's truth necessitates the belief that it is the *only* true church, and that it is a form of relativism to acknowledge another Christian tradition having the Truth when its doctrines differ from one's own. I suggest that there is a third approach, beyond the dichotomy of either holding a relativistic worldview or claiming only one body holds exclusive truth: a humble acknowledgement that we are too sinful to fully understand God's pure truth and to do the best we can to discern it as we are able.

Eric, in light of your acknowledgement that the topic is too broad to be covered in this thread, is there a website you recommend that explains some of the Catholic view on this in more detail? Thx.

You have to look at all this in a historical context. The Catholics (Eastern Orthodox and Roman) were essentially the only Christian “denomination” that existed at the time of the reformation. They have never, at any point in history, seen themselves as “the right Christian church,” they have always considered themselves as “The Christian Church.” Meaning that they were, and continue to be, the Church that arose from the bishops that were appointed by the Apostles.

Every other Christian denomination (absent ones based on new revelations like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, etc...) can trace its origins back to some group that split from the Catholics. These splits occurred because someone began to believe something different from the majority view of the time.

Usually, division began with perceived differences between Catholic doctrine and Scripture, thus allowing the resulting denomination to claim that it is, in fact, older than Catholicism. However, the actual body of believers that splintered off did represent something new. It represented divisions in Christian thought regarding apostolic succession that, at the very lest, had not existed in an organized fashion for well over a thousand years.

Therefore, the Catholic Church will always treat Protestants like the north treated the south during the civil war. It doesn’t see different interpretations deserving equal attention, it sees divisions in what should be one Christian body. Just like the north always considered the south American, the Catholic Church still considers Protestants Christian.

Catholics don’t believe all non-Catholics are going to hell. They simply believe non-Catholics are Christians who lack the “fullness” of the faith. More dogmatically, since Catholics believe in only one Church, then they also believe that all baptized Christians are, in a way, members of the Catholic Church (even if they are not in “full communion” with it). Although, they believe it harder to obtain salvation without the graces provided by all the Sacraments.

I’m not a Catholic, but I can’t ignore history.

Ken:

No, this is not putting the cart before the house.

The Church preceded the Bible. This is simple historical fact.

As well, your equation of "The Word of God" with "The Bible" is itself unBiblical. In Scripture, the phrase "Word of God" never refers to the Bible (as we today have it). "God's Word" is simply the proclamation of God's teaching by the prophets and/or the apostles. Much of this teaching was committed to writing, but the Scriptures themselves are supplemental to basic knowledge which is presupposed by them.

And so whereas Protestants traditionally identify the Word of God with Scripture, Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) identify the Word with the Church's Tradition, both written and oral, as interpreted by God's Church.

I think the latter identification is much more Biblical, as well as much more in accordance with commonsense and the actual history of the development of the Biblical canon. (The same is true to a certain extent, by the way, of Judaism and the Old Testament Which is why orthodox Judaism's doctrine of Scripture/Tradition is much more akin to Catholicism's than to Protestantism's.)

Patrick:

Charley's hit the nail exactly on the head.

The Catholic Church has always acknowledged that non-Catholic sects (and even non-Christian religions) all contain some of the Truth, to greater or lesser degrees depending on the religion in question.

From the Catholic perspective, the true Church really doesn't have a name. We just call it "Catholic" for practical purposes. In different times and palces, she could go by other names (Orthodox/The Way/Zazrene, etc.) It just so happens that our Church, THE Church, has always called herself Catholic to distinguish her from heretical sects.

And so Catholicism is not a denomination of Christianity. It IS Christianity. Non-Catholic religions are only "Christian" insofar as they administer valid baptism and have retained a greater or lesser degree of Catholic teaching.

Two sources I would direct you to are, first of all, the Vatican document itself (the one that is the focus of this thread):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Also, the site http://www.catholic.com

That should read:

"In different times and places, she could go by other names (Orthodox/The Way/Nazrene, etc.)"

what the Pope is trying to do is point out that the Church will no
longer make believe that we are not the one true Church founded by Christ in matters of ecumenism. We are the giant oak, the franciscans, dominicans, jesuits, carmelites etc are our branches, the protestant churches are the twigs that broke off and are laying on the groung waiting to be gathered up and burned at the campfire.
Anyone that studies ancient Christian history knows that the Church is the original one: with the mass, the saints, purgatory, and veneration of Mary. The Orthodox whom I love broke away and have faltered for 1000 years and not grown. By breaking away they were to suffer with the attacks and control of Islam as well as the recent problems with communism in Russia. I consider it dishonest to be Protestant. On "this ROCK I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". The arguements against this quote are frivolous at best. Sorry, I left Jesus' Church for twenty years and frolicked in "bible churches" where the Pastor is the infallible teacher of scripture...ridiculous. We have thousands of Bible churches all teaching differntly, be honest and come home to Rome. Read Scott Hahn if you dare.
Thunder

While I would probably agree with the dogmatic underpinnings of Thunder Man's post, I find it very one-sided, failing to do justice to the richness and holiness of the Protestant tradition.

Most conservative Protestants I know are "more Catholic" than most Catholics I know.

As well, his flippant dismissal of Eastern Orthodox betrays a very simplistic understanding of the centuries-in-the-making schism between the Eastern and Western Churches.

Just my two cents . . .

Thunder, another concern I have with your post (in addition to what Eric made reference to) is this:

"By breaking away they were to suffer with the attacks and control of Islam as well as the recent problems with communism in Russia."

I trust that you are not saying this was God's punishemnt to the Orthodox Churches. To be consistent, Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God, etc. It's the flip side of prosperity preaching, which the Catholic Church has been admirably able to avoid for centuries. But I'll assume that's not what you meant.

I am glad you have found/returned to a church home that brings you closer to God. But I do want to comment: it sounds like the Protestant churches you were involved with were not ideal. Pastor's should not be seen as infallible, though there are a lot of churches especially charismatic churches that are pastor/personality-centered. To add to the BS, a lot of them are "prosperity preachers." I'm glad you left those churches. I'd rather worship at a Catholic Mass any Sunday even without partaking, than attend one of those churches.

Is religious reform needed today? If so, what kinds of changes should be made? Would these changes make a better difference for everyone?

I do understand the pope was talking to Catholics, but this isn't new theology. The documents he released had been circulated within the past decade. (http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/religion/2008/04/a-lukewarm-welcome-for-pope-be.html) So why re-release them?

I do understand the pope was talking to Catholics, but this isn't new theology. The documents he released had been circulated within the past decade. (http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/religion/2008/04/a-lukewarm-welcome-for-pope-be.html) So why re-release them?

As the financial crisis grips the entire world. We need to be more informed
of the options and choices that we have. Found this website that has a lot
of information regarding reverse mortgage and other mortgage related issues.

The website is dedicated to Mortgage problems faced by real people and the
answers to it. You will find a lot of questions and the answers to those
questions posted by reall real people so it is very informative.

So see the answers to you mortgage questions at What Is Reverse Mortgage