The Pope's Decree

I'm not going so far as to say that the Pope is the Beast from Revelation. But I am so glad that I'm not a Catholic.

 

Are we surprised? They still haven't revoked the Council of Trent.

 

I am glad that DHK brought this to our attention, thanks to DHK.

I expect the typical exegesis and comments by RC or Pro-RC's about that statements.

The typical explanation would be " what the Pope said is not what the critics argue against but the Holy Father meant this.... "

BTW, did he declare it from Ex Cathedra? I think he didn't carry the magic chair to that place and therefore it can be fallible and can be excused as Fallible.

 

I agree.

Seriously, this is not new.
Didn't the Pope say the same thing 5 years back?

 

CNN reported the same:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html

 

I'm not Catholic, but I sure miss Pope John Paul II. It seems as if all this new pope does is alienate people. First, he angered the Muslims by quoting that medieval ruler, then he reinstitutes the mass in Latin, angering liberals and Jews, and now this! :tear:

 

I am going to quote the document in question -- coloring mine:

With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church​

Per the Catechism 1259-1260, they believe one can be "baptized" without really being through a ceremony.

I am fairly familiar with how Catholic polemicists try to reconcile old statements that non-Catholics were non-Christians with modern statements to the contrary.

The present belief is that the "fullness" of Christ's grace is contained in the Catholic church. Non-Catholic Christian churches are held to get a `residual effect' of this.

Of course, an "episcopate" does not make a church. Communities of followers of Jesus Christ make a church.

 

John Paul II was a nice guy, but he essentially said the same thing.

 

Are you talking about this priest for the Idol?

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/crown.htm

 

What part of this is "NEWs?"

So how is this any kind of change at all from what they were already frankly admitting in the mid 90's??

 

I'm joining the others here who are saying that this is old news: so the Pope's a Catholic is he? Well, blow me down with a feather! In other news, bears in forested areas don't use public restrooms...

The history of this policy goes back of course to the Tridentine canons, which are laced with the usual 16th century polemic and rhetoric. A similarly uncharitable position was expressed specifically to the Anglican Communion in +++Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curiae (the Anglican response by ++Cantuar and ++Ebor, which effectively amounts to "Push off, Leo" is Saepius Officio) ; there's also Lumen Gentium which is a product of Vatican II and most recently of course the aforementioned Dominus Iesus.

Lumen Gentium is particularly illustrative of the Catholic 'double integrity' on this issue to which earlier posters have alluded. Paras 14 and 15 are pertinent here: on the one hand they say thay only in the RCC can full salvation be definitelyfound; on the other hand they state that salvation may be found outside of the RCC. Read together with the other documents and +++Benedict's latest pronouncement, they sketch a 'concentric circle' scheme of salvific economy - in the 'inner circle' is the RCC, then progressing outwards we have the Orthodox, then others with Bishops such as Anglicans and some Lutherans and finally, the charmingly described 'defective ecclesial communities' such as prebyterians and congregationalists, in the 'outer ring'. They attempt to say where salvation is found according to RC doctrine, not where it may not be found.

It goes without saying that I take a fair amount of issue with those assertions!

[ETA - I would also say that this attitude is not much different to that of many fundamentalist churches to other Christians]

 

I.e. non-Catholics CAN be saved but only in an unbiblical "non New Covenant" way. The idea all along was that the New Covenant was THE way to be saved and it is confined to the RC Mass. "This CUP IS the New Covenant in my blood"

Non-RC Christians are getting saved out of a profound ignorance in this case but still - not via the New Covenant.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I feel sad when I notice many Protestants are mindful about the recognition by the Idol worshippers and the goddess worshippers.
But I am quite hopeful that there are so many True Christians on this world who will fight the Idol worshippers and goddess worshippers, and Bible clearly tells us that millions and innumerable number of Believers will come out of the Tribulation by the Beast and the Harlot, winning over them ( Rev 7)

 

So, um, in what way is your attitude towards Catholics different from that of the Pope towards Protestants?

 

I think Bears in the forest use the Public Restroom in their society and in their terms.

His criteria may be that one should be under the holy father which is human, my criteria is that one should know the Holy Father ( God) and His sent Jesus Christ, which means the personal relationship with God.

We accept the believers into our fellowship after hearing the testimony of the candidates. The candidates should present how they were saved, how they accepted the Lord Jesus, how the Holy Spirit responded to their prayers, what are the differences in their lives between the life before the salvation and the one after the salvation, how God started to speak to the person when she or he was born again. How they resolve the sins if they occur in their lives.

So the hearing is very much intensive. In my case it took about 2 hours or more, including the questions from the listeners. Therefore, as long as they can present the Testimony of the Salvation, regardless of denominations, we recognize the Salvation of the others too.

In our case, we do acknowledge the salvation of others, e.g. often among the Bible Baptists, Calvary Baptists, Independent Baptists, many from Wesleyan, some from Methodists, Menonites, Moravian Bretheren, some from Presbyterian as well. But I have never met any Roman Catholic who could present the testimony of Salvation, how they were born again by Holy Spirit, how are the differences between their life before salvation and that after being born again.

In my experience, the typical phenomena of the Saved are that they preach the Gospel so often and read the Bible without assistance from any others.

As I said, as we recognize the others, we use the Public Restroom, right?

 

You know Matt I am starting to see the similarities


Bretheren - RCC
The candidates should present how they were saved - Baptism certificate
How they accepted Jesus - Confirmation
life before - Confession
How they resolve sins - Penance

It's the same thing just different ways of saying it.

 

Heh heh - was thinking that myself!

 

You see the differences there too!

PB believes the criteria are the spiritual matters, while RCC claims certain visual, physical things.

Peter's chair, Key to Heaven given to Peter ( Electronic number key or mechanic?), Baptismal Regeneration, Baptism Certificate, etc.

As I said we admit the others, while Mr. Ratzinger denies even COE.

Matt may not be taking this serious, right?

 

What difference, except for language used what is occuring is the exact same thing, a whole bunch of you have to's.

Excuse my ignorance, what is COE?