Pope: Other denominations not true churches

[Rameses the Great]

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.

 

Link.

 

This is the second time the pope's words have caused controversey. For those who don't know we were in talks of reuniting into one church but because of these comments it is likely to end. Can someone who knows the situation better tell me what the heck is going on?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Here ia a quote from a post of member no. 109, URSUS:

Jul 4 2006, 04:28 PM Post #35

"It would be nice though if we could discuss Christianity without:

 

* Protestants waving the banner of Solo Sciptura against Catholics and Orthodox (to be blunt, as far as I am concerned the Protestant viewpoint is off topic since it has nothing to do with the Christianity of the Roman Empire)

 

* Agnostics who feel the need to make rather rude comments about Christianity no matter the situation .... or to make rude comments about religion in general. Bonus points if they somehow manage to tie in the evils of organized religion with the politics of the Bush Administration.

 

And yes I suppose sometimes Pagans can get snippy when it comes to Christianity, though I see far less of it than the above two.

 

Everytime a discussion on Christianity is started it degenerates into the above pattern, it seems. Those who sincerely want to discuss Christianity as a historical and cultural reflection of the Roman Empire have to suffer those on all sides who have an axe to grind. "

 

Wiser words were hardly ever said.

I bring these words of precaution because it seems that this thread is going to talk about the relations between different denominations, a highly candent topic.

[Rameses the Great]

Here ia a quote from a post of member no. 109, URSUS:

Jul 4 2006, 04:28 PM Post #35

"It would be nice though if we could discuss Christianity without:

 

* Protestants waving the banner of Solo Sciptura against Catholics and Orthodox (to be blunt, as far as I am concerned the Protestant viewpoint is off topic since it has nothing to do with the Christianity of the Roman Empire)

 

* Agnostics who feel the need to make rather rude comments about Christianity no matter the situation .... or to make rude comments about religion in general. Bonus points if they somehow manage to tie in the evils of organized religion with the politics of the Bush Administration.

 

And yes I suppose sometimes Pagans can get snippy when it comes to Christianity, though I see far less of it than the above two.

 

Everytime a discussion on Christianity is started it degenerates into the above pattern, it seems. Those who sincerely want to discuss Christianity as a historical and cultural reflection of the Roman Empire have to suffer those on all sides who have an axe to grind. "

 

Wiser words were hardly ever said.

I bring these words of precaution because it seems that this thread is going to talk about the relations between different denominations, a highly candent topic.

 

Indeed and I agree completely, although sometimes do into trouble, with what Ursus said. However we did talk about the Pope's words after his controversial topics about Islam. I'm just wandering why he all of a sudden turned the relations of the Catholic church. There is still friction between the two Apostolic churches, Catholics and Orthodox. The Pope is a very wise and smart man make no doubts however I don't know what led him to the comments he made. He seems more conservative then Pope John Paul II.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve! I think that any religion's head always declares that his teachings are, by definition, the only truth, especially when he is talking to his own parish. We should remember Pope John Paul II was considered conservative in comparison with his predecessors (for example, about the Liberation Theology movement), and also Paul VI when compared with John XXIII, the Pope that convoked Vatican II. I guess that what explains the different strategies is not so much the personality of each Pope as the evolution of the global conditions; in the sixties, the Catholic Church was much more stable and then it tried to make links with other denominations for becoming more "catholic" ("Universal"). Today, as its desertion index is much bigger, and as a source of this desertion is considered to be the disappointment of many traditionalist Catholics, the Church seems to be trying to attract them by drawing its line against other denominations. Only time will determine if this is the right tactic.

[Honorius]

ahh typical Latin..the papacy has been going on about papal supremecy over the christian world for centuries..

 

though Benedict is ruining the chances of healing the age old schism between the Latin and orthodox churches

[Kosmo]

He was nicer with the orthodox churches calling them apostolic churches. The thing about the supremacy of the pope it's the strangest, the bishop of Rome never had authority over the patriarhs of the East.

I really don't see how the churches could come closer even if they really wanted to. There are many problems...

[Marcus Caelius]

Disclaimer: I'm a former Protestant, and present nonbeliever.

 

Having said that, the Pope's position makes perfect sense to me. If you truly believe that yours is the one, true God, then how can anyone else's religion possibly be correct? The very best that you could say is that all others are mistaken, and the more they disagree with you, the more mistaken they are. Further, if you begin to compromise with other faiths, then aren't you allowing their mistakes to spread into your own religion?

 

What bothers me is just how far Benedict is going to go. I'm not afraid of another Inquisition, but another Crusade is not inconceivable if his "reforms" continue into the next Papal reign or two. The last thing the world needs right now is the conservative polarization of yet another worldwide religion.

[Ursus]

The Pope as head of his church is entitled to his opinion, and that Catholicism thinks itself the one true religion is certainly nothing new.

 

But as I stated in another thread, Ratzinger had an opportunity to form coalitions against common enemies (like the Jihadist Muslims that are living in his proverbial backyard in Europe). Instead he chooses to alienate just about everybody except the hardcore Catholic faithful. Not the most politic thing to do in my opinion. I suspect sometime later this century Catholicism and Orthodoxy will have to band together or face annihilation at the hands of secularism, Islam and Charismatic Christianity.

 

But as a pagan it's not my problem, and I have no further comments on this issue.

[caldrail]

The whole rationale of christianity is that there is one god, that jesus is is son (and the figurehead of the faith), plus a whole host of supporting characters who get some attention from worshippers. Since the roman catholic church descends directly to the earliest bishops of rome, they therefore can claim to be the 'true' sect from that point of view. I'm not aware if any other of the countless sects and variations on christianity are still around or claim direct descent. Perhaps the pope is trying to reignite catholic pride and importance, particularly in the rise of islam and other belief structures. Its all a bit worrying really because its exactly this political posturing that causes religious wars.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Today, as its desertion index is much bigger, and as a source of this desertion is considered to be the disappointment of many traditionalist Catholics, the Church seems to be trying to attract them by drawing its line against other denominations. Only time will determine if this is the right tactic.

 

I think this is the right explanation. Moreover, the tactic does seem to be working (at least for now). According to this article on the "Ratzinger Effect", donations to the Church are up 20%, and more people are visiting the Vatican every year.

[Rameses the Great]

Pope Benedict is very conservative as a matter of fact, moreso then Pope John Paul. I have no problem in what he said, yet the motives he wanted. Does he want to tell the Catholics they're the true religion? Did he want to tell the Orthodox and other Christian faiths that what they believe is not true? Or both? The pope in this day and age must act politically. The day Pope Benedict stated what he did about Islam his people were not harmed yet the Christians living in the Middle East were hurt. This is a result of his comments the papacy of Rome has a lot of power.

 

People seem to forget we used to be one church. Christianity started in the Middle East in places such as Syria, Armenia, and Egypt all within the areas of the Eastern Roman Empire. When the Edict of Milan was signed it was no longer dangerous to become Christian. They ordered the rest of the empire to follow the pope in Rome, well of course we won't why would we have to follow the people we taught? Before you know it the doctrines were altered. The differences between Catholicism and Orthodox are small but they are HUGE.

 

I would love to rejoin with the Catholic Church but it won't be done like this. I just wander where Pope Benedict is going with this, I guess only time will tell.

 

My two cents.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

I think that the matters of the faith (any faith, BTW) tend to be categorical because of its own nature; you believe the same as me ... or you don't. Period! (Even for some atheist, for god sake!).

Any kind of negotiations among different denominations will always be hot topic, because the True Believers may consider that, if you admit other creeds to be right, maybe you should change of temple.

[Nephele]

I don't think there's any real problem in whether the adherents of any particular religion believe theirs to be the "one true faith", and that they're on the fast track to heaven because they've signed up with the winning team. Well, isn't that special -- for them? Obviously, they must believe that their religion is the "true" religion, else what would be the point of belonging to it?

 

The problem is when folks also believe that they are inherently more moral than their neighbors, by virtue of the fact that they say their prayers differently from the way their neighbors say theirs, or that they refrain from eating certain foods, or that their particular religion has a longer pedigree than the religion of their upstart neighbors.

 

How can a person who is convinced of his religion's moral superiority not also feel a compelling duty to insist that others behave in accordance with what his religion teaches to be "best" for all of society? From such a mentality comes blue laws and (to a greater degree) forced religious conversion and the establishment of theocracies.

 

The Catholic Church's morality -- particularly on issues of birth control, homosexuality, polyamory, etc. -- is not what I would care to have imposed upon me. It may be perfectly fine for Catholics, and I've no problem whatsoever with Catholics living the way that Catholics ought to live. I've only a problem when the rest of us are expected to live the way that Catholics ought to live.

 

-- Nephele

[Marcus Caelius]

People seem to forget we used to be one church.

 

Christianity was never one church. The very first division, during Peter and Paul's lifetimes, was between those who wanted Gentiles to become circumcised before they could convert, and those who thought baptism was enough. This was a major doctrinal disagreement splitting Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the divisions only grew from there.

[Rameses the Great]

People seem to forget we used to be one church.

 

Christianity was never one church. The very first division, during Peter and Paul's lifetimes, was between those who wanted Gentiles to become circumcised before they could convert, and those who thought baptism was enough. This was a major doctrinal disagreement splitting Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the divisions only grew from there.

 

This issue was also solved. Your right, but Paul convinced Peter and James to stop this practice. They set two conditions for the Gentiles, 1. To become accustomed with Judaism and 2. To give a donation to the church upon baptism. Paul told them that if they did not have to become Jewish first, then all who were baptised had to give a donation which was important considering at that time donations were really important. Of course Paul was still disappointed but the rift was settled.

 

Also remember there was never a 'church' at that time it was a belief and not much more at that time.