Pope: Other denominations not true churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bosun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please help this new Catholic. What is the difference between a church (lower-case) and a parish?
 
rpp said:
Please help this new Catholic. What is the difference between a church (lower-case) and a parish?
Click to expand...
Properly, the term “church” relates to the building. The term “parish” relates to the people. When there is a pastor, the term “church” also identifies the parish as a whole. When there is not a resident pastor, the congregation is a “community.”

In Mountain View, we built Saint Mary’s church. We are Saint Mary’s Catholic Community.
 
rpp said:
Please help this new Catholic. What is the difference between a church (lower-case) and a parish?
Click to expand...
Along the lines of what brianwalden said above, the word is sometimes used in a more traditional way by bishops or the Vatican to refer to dioceses. So you may read a formal announcement of a new bishop to serve the church (sometimes capitalized) in Portland, who had previously served churches elsewhere in the country. They’re not talking about a particular parish or building in Portland, but the entire diocese.
 
Digitonomy said:
Along the lines of what brianwalden said above, the word is sometimes used in a more traditional way by bishops or the Vatican to refer to dioceses. So you may read a formal announcement of a new bishop to serve the church (sometimes capitalized) in Portland, who had previously served churches elsewhere in the country. They’re not talking about a particular parish or building in Portland, but the entire diocese.
Click to expand...
Thank you Vern and Digitonomy.

I love the Catholic language. It is not English. It is not Latin. It is Catholic! :rolleyes:

🙂
 
Digitonomy said:
Along the lines of what brianwalden said above, the word is sometimes used in a more traditional way by bishops or the Vatican to refer to dioceses. So you may read a formal announcement of a new bishop to serve the church (sometimes capitalized) in Portland, who had previously served churches elsewhere in the country. They’re not talking about a particular parish or building in Portland, but the entire diocese.
Click to expand...
This document was talking about churches centered around bishops. It wasn’t talking about priests and parishes. Isn’t the only reason that parishes are churches because they’re in communion with a bishop? As far as Vern Humphrey’s diocese is concerned he may belong to a community rather than a parish or church, but since this thread is about the recent CDF document we need to speak in terms of that document. Vern’s community is in communion with a validly ordained bishop, therefore its part of that bishop’s church which is in communion with the Church.
 
rpp said:
Please help this new Catholic. What is the difference between a church (lower-case) and a parish?
Click to expand...
I think a parish is just a geographical division within a diocese. I think this geographical nature of the word is why counties in Louisiana are also called parishes. But maybe someone else has more information on the topic.
 
First, I have serious reservations about obtaining news from highly biased sources. Surf ZENIT.com/ for perhaps a better take on the story. Notice that only the most potentially inflammatory headline was used? I do not participate in the mass media (the “Scribes”). My outlook and my faith have improved substantially since I cut the ties.

The Peace of Christ to all.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Ok, time to discuss infallibility in this matter. This statement on a previous document was not ex cathedra, neither was the restatement. A bishop’s council (VII) did say that salvation was possible outside the RCC. Since ex cathedra was not invoked, then the VII interpretation stands as by some interpretations, that would still be “infallible” until proven otherwise and no recent meeting of bishops have pulled back from that so far.
Click to expand...
Since ex cathedra was not invoked,

I don’t understand - why waive the “it’s not Ex cathedra flag”?

"then the VII interpretation stands as by some interpretations,"

That makes no sense. Substitute “definition” for interpretations in that sentence. then the VII definition stands as by some definition,

*** “that would still be “infallible” until proven otherwise”…***

Why put “invaillible” in quotes? And how does one prove otherwise?

*** and no recent meeting of bishops have pulled back from that so far***

Namely another ecumenical council?

B16 re-iterated almost exacly the V2 document that reflects the constant teaching: No fullness of valid sacraments, no church.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
B16 re-iterated almost exacly the V2 document that reflects the constant teaching: No fullness of valid sacraments, no church.
Click to expand...
I think that I read that Pope John Paul II and also Pope Paul VI referred to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as Sister Churches.
 
bobzills said:
I think that I read that Pope John Paul II and also Pope Paul VI referred to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as Sister Churches.
Click to expand...
Which, Bob, corresponds and compliments exactly what I wrote:
ASimpleSinner said:
B16 re-iterated almost exacly the V2 document that reflects the constant teaching: No fullness of valid sacraments, no church.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox do have valid sacraments and therefore are, churches. The Protestants do not and therefore are, ecclesial communities.

True churches have all seven sacraments.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Which, Bob, corresponds and compliments exactly what I wrote:

The Orthodox do have valid sacraments and therefore are, churches. The Protestants do not and therefore are, ecclesial communities.

True churches have all seven sacraments.
Click to expand...
And that has always been Catholic doctrine. In the 2nd Century, Irenaus used the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession to refute the Gnostics.
 
vern_humphrey said:
And that has always been Catholic doctrine. In the 2nd Century, Irenaus used the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession to refute the Gnostics.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This “new teaching” isn’t new at all.

Yet people seem to be all confused and have gotten their dander up as though the Holy Father came out and said “Others aren’t Christian”.

In fact he merely pointed out that without the fullness of the seven sacraments, others could not be understood to be possessed of churches. Churches, have 7 sacraments. Protestants do not have that.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Exactly. This “new teaching” isn’t new at all.

Yet people seem to be all confused and have gotten their dander up as though the Holy Father came out and said “Others aren’t Christian”.
Click to expand...
Because that’s how the media spun it. Anti-Catholic yellow journalism at its finest.
 
Bosun said:
I’d like to hear your views on this news article.

msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094
Click to expand...
Leave it to MSNBC to flagrantly misconstrue what the Pope said. Only those who espouse such “fringist” ideologies would subscribe to this kind of demagoguery sic]. :eek:

It’s small wonder, I suppose, that the likes of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann are helping media stations like this LURCH uncontrollably to the Left.
 
My problem is my anger. I used to listen to talk raio. I ended up angry. I turned it off. I cancelled the newspaper. I no longer watch TV. I listen ONLY to Catholic Radio. I am much happier. NO ONE else is on our side. No one else obeys Christ’s command to love us. MSNBC/ABC/CBS/ABC/NBC - it doesn’t matter. They are all lined up against the faith. Do not believe their “Catholic” reporters. They are likely CINOs, or heretics.

Consider: “If the world hates you, remember it hated me first” Since our Pope stands in persona Christi, it can be said by him as well as it was said by Christ. The article is proof of that.

Christ’s peace to all of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top