Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[RevDrNorth]

:yup:

His Holiness has said that I’m not a true Christian. I disagree most strongly. I suggest his holiness asks Jesus Christ what those marks on his feet and wrists are about. I have a covenant with Christ. He is my defence.

I agree that Roman Catholics are true Christians because I’ve met enough of them who know Jesus as I know him.

Don’t worry HH B XVI is not necessarily correct. According to the Orthodox view they are that Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Roman Church went into schism agaisnt the Church founded by Christ (developed new innovative doctrines and so on). So you are not in a much worse boat since we Anglicans are merely a schism of a schism.

Of course from an Anglican point of view there was the Church founded by Christ and three branches that came off of it (RCC, Orthodox and Anglican).

Benedict is Bishop and one to be respected but I highly doubt his views on this issue represents Christ’s it is simply the human tendency to want to make our piece of the empire the most important, the best and so on. After all, the Roman Church went into schism first and then criticizes those that went into schism from her and the parent she left. :yup:

Rev North

 

[SFLCatholic]

:yup:

Don’t worry HH B XVI is not necessarily correct. According to the Orthodox view they are that Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Roman Church went into schism agaisnt the Church founded by Christ (developed new innovative doctrines and so on). So you are not in a much worse boat since we Anglicans are merely a schism of a schism.

Of course from an Anglican point of view there was the Church founded by Christ and three branches that came off of it (RCC, Orthodox and Anglican).

Benedict is Bishop and one to be respected but I highly doubt his views on this issue represents Christ’s it is simply the human tendency to want to make our piece of the empire the most important, the best and so on. After all, the Roman Church went into schism first and then criticizes those that went into schism from her and the parent she left. :yup:

Rev North

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Anglicanism started so King Henry VIII could behead his wife and marry another?

How do you suppose to represent Christ through Anglicanism given this history? Unless of course you are telling me that Jesus was a murderer. Which I hope you aren’t.

At least Pope Benedict XVI can trace his views, which are infallible, right back to the source, Jesus. Apostolic succession baby!

 

[RevDrNorth]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Anglicanism started so King Henry VIII could behead his wife and marry another?

How do you suppose to represent Christ through Anglicanism given this history? Unless of course you are telling me that Jesus was a murderer. Which I hope you aren’t.

At least Pope Benedict XVI can trace his views, which are infallible, right back to the source, Jesus. Apostolic succession baby!

But the RCC has not maintained the apostolic faith because of innovative doctrines developed every few centuries such as Immaculate conception, Papal infallability, etc. You are simply one schismatic group that gave birth to our schismatic group.

There is certainly more to the founding of the Anglican Church than Henry and his wife. A lot had to do with political issues of control. Don’t forget tht the RCC has been more than a church it was an entity very much into political power and control. Did they not lose the Papal States just in the last century. Also, attacking 6 ft 2 in, artistic, physcially combatative, testy, philandering (not to mention gluttonous) Harry as indicative of Anglicanism would be like me nailing RCCism because of the many Popes whose behavior was less than holy and downright scandalous. Not to mention the indulgences SALE…SALE…SALE…and other sinful acts of the RCC.

From what research I have done there seems to be only one Church who can make the claim of continuous apostolic faith and that is the Orthodox Church. You schismed from it…we schismed from you…Methodism…from us…and like the Breck commercial…so…on and so on. So you probably ought not to get to mad at the parent you left behind and the children you gave birth to.

Maybe Orthodoxy will welcome the RCC home like the prodigal child.

Rev North {trying to decide whether to swim toward Constantinople…but tough to leave my culturally ingrained faith behind}

 

[mtr01]

RevNorth,

All the fathers of the eastern churches recognized the ACTUAL primacy of Rome, prior to the schism. There is no denying this (although the EO try). Just look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers and it is clear that any time there was a matter they needed settled, they always appealed to Rome and always obeyed the Pope’s decisions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is attempting to revise history.

Very true. One of my favorite examples is Pope Celestine commissioning St. Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria) with Rome’s authority to depose Nestorius, writing "…assuming unto yourself the authority of our see, and using our stead and place with authority, you will carry out this sentence with the greatest strictness, that is: unless, within ten days to be reckoned from the time when he receives this our admonition, he condemns his perverse doctrines in a written confession… [PL 50: 463]

Now remember, Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria) originally writes to Pope Celestine to complain about Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople). The Pope then sends one Patriarch to depose the other. If the Orthodox are correct, why would Cyril write to the pope in the first place? Primacy of honor, you say? Ok, perhaps. However, when the Pope tells Cyril to depose Nestorius using the authority of the Apostolic See, Cyril doesn’t say, “well wait a minute pope, you just have a primacy of honor, you have no power to depose a patriarch”. No, he takes the letter from the pope, and using that authority, called a council in Alexandria, drew up the Twelve Chapters, and went to Constantinople to make Nestorius sign the document. When Nestorius refused, Cyril wrote back to the pope to ask if the sentence had taken effect. By that time, the emperors called a council (Ephesus). The Pope wrote back to Cyril in May 431 to give Nestorius one more chance at the council, which was convened in June, 431.

 

[mtr01]

Just as a follow up, once the papal legates arrived at Ephesus, they read Pope’s Celestine’s judgment concerning Nestorius, to which the bishops at the council replied,

"A just judgment is this. To the new Peter, Celestine. To the new Paul, Cyril. To Celestine, guardian of the faith. To Celestine, of one mind with the synod. To Celestine the entire synod gives thanks. One Celestine, one Cyril, one faith of the synod, one faith of the entire world. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio 4: 1287].

The legates then asked to see the acts of the council so that they could be confirmed in accordance with the sentence of the pope Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I: 1: 3: 60-61], after which one of the legates exclaimed

“It is doubtful to none, rather is it known to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to him, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors. Accordingly our holy and most blessed father, Bishop Celestine, his successor in order who also holds his place, has sent us to this holy synod…” Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I: 1: 3: 60-61]

To which there is no recorded objection in the Acts of the council…no one said, “wait a minute, the pope has no such authority.”

This is but one example, during the time of the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. Now I ask, who’s conception of the papacy does history more conform to, the Catholic or the Orthodox?

 

[anthony022071]

All the fathers of the eastern churches recognized the ACTUAL primacy of Rome, prior to the schism. There is no denying this (although the EO try). Just look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers and it is clear that any time there was a matter they needed settled, they always appealed to Rome and always obeyed the Pope’s decisions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is attempting to revise history.

St. Methodius (brother to St. Cyril, and apostle to the Slavs):

“Because of his primacy,the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council;but without his participation,manifested by sending some subordinates,every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent,for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius,in N. Brianchanov,The Russian Church)

 

[RevDrNorth]

St. Methodius (brother to St. Cyril, and apostle to the Slavs):

“Because of his primacy,the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council;but without his participation,manifested by sending some subordinates,every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent,for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius,in N. Brianchanov,The Russian Church)

Not so fast…on Primacy read this:

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

And this:

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

And this:

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.aspx

Or this:

orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

As I said…Rome went into schism against the Church established by Christ and continued to develop new and innovative doctrines. We went into schism against Rome…Methodists from Anglicans and so on. Only one church seems to have maintained the apostolic faith and that is Orthodoxy. We don’t have to like it but…we must search beyond our own little fifedom’s for truth. I understand why it is important for Rome to feel it is the True Church and frankly it was rather abusive at times to the church of God that it left. The sacking of Constant(name removed by moderator)le by cursaders (not authorized by Rome) was a horrible act of barbarism.

orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx

What ever Primacy means it appears Rome abused it and has taken it to mean some sort of ecclesiastical dictatorship. I do not think that is what was meant nor is it accurate from a NT point of view. It just was not from a historical perspective. The papcy morphed over time in a very temporal way.

Rev North

 

[mtr01]

What ever Primacy means it appears Rome abused it and has taken it to mean some sort of ecclesiastical dictatorship. I do not think that is what was meant nor is it accurate from a NT point of view. It just was not from a historical perspective. The papcy morphed over time in a very temporal way.

Rev North

Not so fast. It seems as though while toeing the Orthodox line, you skipped my posts #505 and #506. As is evidenced by history, the Orthodox view is untenable, regardless of their claims to the contrary. If the Orthodox position is correct, then where is the record of protests from Cyril, the Council, or anyone else? Read the posts again, and honestly answer the question in #506.

 

[Sixtus]

What about Clement and the Church of Antioch?

Was not Clement acting as ‘supreme’ bishop with seniority over all other Bishops?

Strange he should have done this when there were still Blessed Apostles alive at the time, whose role it should have been to settle dissent and apostacy…unless of course…the Papacy is what Christ intended!

 

[RC_Deacon08]

Not so fast regarding what Benedict XVI (actually via Cardinal Levada)
said, it might be good if we all read the clarification from Levada:

Turning to the doctrinal congregation’s recent “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” the cardinal said it addresses five questions about the nature of the church “and all five are a commentary on Vatican II documents.”

“It has the advantage of collecting all that has happened since Vatican II up to the present time” and explaining how church articulation of its own nature as well as its views of other Christian communities have developed, he added.

He said he has been “somewhat surprised” at the amount of “ecumenical commentary” the document has generated. “It is primarily a document addressed to Catholics as believers and teachers and is intended to clarify the teachings of the Second Vatican Council,” he said, “especially the teaching on the nature of the church.”

Reaction to the document on the church’s nature in the United States where many religious persuasions exist side by side clearly reflects the nation’s “egalitarian approach to society and therefore to churches,” he said, “where for you to say that your church is the one true church of Christ, and that another’s is not quite, is considered not to be the American way.”

“Underlying a typical American idea of what a church is,” Cardinal Levada said, "is the idea that we are the ones who make the church, we create the church.

“There is the slogan, ‘We are the church.’ And, of course, there is the sense of the church being made up of all the baptized,” he continued. “But we do not make the church. God makes the church. We receive the church as a gift.”

He said the doctrinal congregation’s document could be “very helpful to Catholics in the United States who are culturally conditioned” to accepting self-organized groups of worshippers as churches.

In its emphasis on Vatican II teaching, the congregation’s document was in step with what Cardinal Levada said is one of the clear themes of Pope Benedict’s papacy – underlining that the council represents a continuity of church life, not a point of discontinuity.

At the time of Vatican II, there was a temptation and a tendency to place church practices and teachings in preconciliar and postconciliar “baskets,” he said. “I know I did it. There was a kind of (attitude of) ‘throw this out, here’s the new stuff.’ I think many of us regret that.”

Challenges facing the universal church include “the disconnect between faith and reason in the modern world” cited by the pope in his address in Regensburg, Germany, last September, Cardinal Levada said.

He said the pope “rightly identified as a very significant challenge” a growing view that modern civilization “makes religion no longer necessary, or some would say, even possible.”

Another challenge, he said, is to infuse “into the body politic” an active “love of neighbor and the service we are called to give each other” by Christ to address global issues of war, starvation and disease.

The pope, he said, “often returns to this theme” and exhorts Christians “to use our human ingenuity and creativity to overcome these evils.”

END

Copyright (c) 2007 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.325

 

[anthony022071]

Not so fast…on Primacy read this:

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

It was the Council of Constantinople 1 that first added to the Creed of Nicaea (325). That creed did not have the words “who proceeds from the Father”. The Council of Constantinople (381) added those words as a response to Macedonian Arians,who claimed that the Spirit is a creation of the Son. The Council of Constantinople 1 was originally regarded as regional,since the West did not participate in it. At the Council of Ephesus (431),the Creed of Nicaea was upheld,not the Creed of Constantiople. When the regional Council of Toledo added the filioque to the Creed of Constantinople,it was in response to the Spanish (German) Arian claim that the Son does not eternally participate in the procession of the Spirit,that the Son is only a temporal participant in the Spirit’s procession.

Orthodox theology,following Photios,denies the eternal participation of the Son in the Procession of the Spirit,claiming that the Son has no eternal,personal connection with the Spirit – thereby coming very close to the heresy of the Spanish Arians.

 

[robert_ambrose]

One Lord. One faith. One baptism
Ephesians Ch.4 :5

 

[Mannyfit75]

His Holiness has said that I’m not a true Christian. I disagree most strongly. I suggest his holiness asks Jesus Christ what those marks on his feet and wrists are about. I have a covenant with Christ. He is my defence.

I agree that Roman Catholics are true Christians because I’ve met enough of them who know Jesus as I know him.

I disagree. He only say Non-Catholic does not contain the fullness of truth. You are however, still a Christian, which lack one thing. You don’t recognized the Pope as the Successor of Peter. Nor do you believe in all Catholic doctrines and dogma… so you lack many truths which the original Church of Jesus Christ contain.

Like 1 Tim 3:15, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the Church.

 

[Sixtus]

SFL Catholic posted:

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Anglicanism started so King Henry VIII could behead his wife and marry another?

How do you suppose to represent Christ through Anglicanism given this history? Unless of course you are telling me that Jesus was a murderer. Which I hope you aren’t.

At least Pope Benedict XVI can trace his views, which are infallible, right back to the source, Jesus. Apostolic succession baby!

I think that actually the Rev North will discover that although we love our Orthodox siblings, they left us, not the other way around

 

[Sixtus]

Mannyfit75

Quote:Originally Posted by East Anglican
His Holiness has said that I’m not a true Christian. I disagree most strongly. I suggest his holiness asks Jesus Christ what those marks on his feet and wrists are about. I have a covenant with Christ. He is my defence.

I agree that Roman Catholics are true Christians because I’ve met enough of them who know Jesus as I know him.

I disagree. He only say Non-Catholic does not contain the fullness of truth. You are however, still a Christian, which lack one thing. You don’t recognized the Pope as the Successor of Peter. Nor do you believe in all Catholic doctrines and dogma… so you lack many truths which the original Church of Jesus Christ contain.

Like 1 Tim 3:15, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the Church.

AMEN

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I disagree. He only say Non-Catholic does not contain the fullness of truth. You are however, still a Christian, which lack one thing. You don’t recognized the Pope as the Successor of Peter. Nor do you believe in all Catholic doctrines and dogma… so you lack many truths which the original Church of Jesus Christ contain.

Like 1 Tim 3:15, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the Church.

I don’t exactly consider that a lacking, as God’s grace is sufficient for me.

 

[MariaG]

He protested against the Pharisees. The Pharisees sat in Moses seat and claimed all authority much like the RCC. The only difference is the RCC claims to be of Peter.

Jesus was constantly referring to scriptures to prove them wrong but they were too engulfed in their traditions.

Actually, Jesus affirmed their authority because they sat in the seat of Moses. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but fulfill it.

:bible1: Matt 23:1-2
1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Catholics actually believe that we are no longer bound to “practice and observe whatever they tell you” because Jesus gave that authority to Peter. Jesus was big on authority. The cross did not dissolve or get rid of anything. It fulfilled everything.

 

[Contarini]

I think that actually the Rev North will discover that although we love our Orthodox siblings, they left us, not the other way around

Only if you start with Catholic criteria for what counts as “leaving.” If you don’t assume the criteria of one side or other in advance, I don’t think there are any criteria by which one can say that one of you “left” the other.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Only if you start with Catholic criteria for what counts as “leaving.” If you don’t assume the criteria of one side or other in advance, I don’t think there are any criteria by which one can say that one of you “left” the other.

Edwin

Since the Church recognized the Authority of the Pope for 1054 years I would say that the Church that rejected this is the one that left. Of course neither of the resulting Churchs believed anything even close to the Protestant doctrines “discovered” 500 years later which is why i suspect Rev North sent us down this rabbit hole in the first place.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Since the Church recognized the Authority of the Pope for 1054 years I would say that the Church that rejected this is the one that left. Of course neither of the resulting Churchs believed anything even close to the Protestant doctrines “discovered” 500 years later which is why i suspect Rev North sent us down this rabbit hole in the first place.

You’re really angry at Protestants, and Luther in particular it seems. Might you by any chance be an ex-Protestant, now Catholic?