Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[Philothea53]

: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

You sound like a Mormon saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church Jesus Christ built.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

of course we acess to tradition more than anyone else does-1500 years more to be exact.

I’ve gone over this with you before too. I claim every one of those 1500 years you are referring to as part of my own tradition also. That you choose to turn a blind eye to it is again your problem, not mine.

We share not just 1500 years, but more like 1534 years in common. It is only over the last 473 years that we have different traditions.

As to some of you other questions:

Sola scriptura is something I have already said that I do not adhere to anymore than you do. But surely if something cannot be found in scripture, but rather scripture can be found that speak against it, then it should not be a part of the teaching of the church regardless if a whole serious of church Fathers and Popes has taught otherwise; in that sense I think that scripture is primary.

And with regard to Sola Fidelis, in adhereing to the concept of trusting the teaching authorities of the church, should I accept your lay view on this matter, or should I pay attention to the view of the Catholic priest who had the position of professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg. Do you propose that Luther was the only Catholic to have ever held those views?

You didn’t mention Sola Gratia. Do also want to argue that the Catholic church has never taught that God’s grace is the only cause by which justification is effected in our lives? ( For that is what my “protesting” church teaches.)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That swimmer was God’s grace in action. When you reject the Catholic Church you reject the help He sends just as the drowning man rejected the lifejacket, the boat and the helicopter. You drown when you reject His Bride, the Church.

Ah, but you see, that is my point. I have neither drowned, nor have I rejected anyone. Because you have shut yourself up in one small room of the manion God has built and see no one else, you think you are the only ones in it. It simply isn’t true.

 

[mark_a]

:yup:

Originally Posted by RevDrNorth forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*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, *

Rev North

*:nope: :tsktsk: *
*Keep in mind that Cardinal Ratzinger had no desire to become pope. At 79, he was ready to go back home and enjoy the rest of his life. He and his brother had bought a place back home. *

*Ratzinger prayed that the papacy would pass him by, knowing that there were younger, better qualified men for the job. *

Imagine the most hated authority on earth becoming yours just as you are ready to hang it up.

I suggest that lots of wannabes exhibit “the human tendency to want to make our piece of the empire the most important, the best and so on.”

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hopefully not that many. Most Protestants know about this anyway.

Yep, a retired Presbyterian minister from my hometown, he writes a weekly column in the newspaper, he did an article on this topic recently.

He said that it’s silly that many Protestant/Evangelical denominations are making a big deal out of this like it was something new or a rejection of “all the good things” that they thought had come about in the past 20 years or so.

He said that the Church is simply reiterating what was said very clearly in Vatican II and for millenia prior to it.

Personally, I think this former Presbyterian minister secretly wants to be a Catholic

 

[RevDrNorth]

You sound like a Mormon saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church Jesus Christ built.

Indeed hell did not prevail against the Church and that Church is the Orthodox Church who more than any other fits the description suffering persecution from Muslims, Roman Catholics, and Communism. God is indeed faithful.

Rev North

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Indeed hell did not prevail against the Church and that Church is the Orthodox Church who more than any other fits the description suffering persecution from Muslims, Roman Catholics, and Communism. God is indeed faithful.

Rev North

I don’t want to get too personal, but you sound fairly convinced of what you say, at least on the surface.

So are you hinting that you are considering becoming Eastern Orthodox? The things you say, it sounds like you are fairly well along on that road.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I don’t want to get too personal, but you sound fairly convinced of what you say, at least on the surface.

So are you hinting that you are considering becoming Eastern Orthodox? The things you say, it sounds like you are fairly well along on that road.

In all seriousness and without attempts at humorous hyperbole…yes. I have been doing a fair amount of reading and sole searching. I had developed dis satisfaction with the liberal bent of my denomination and began research.

PS I am a Gen Xer and I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the Roman Catholic Church (especially that of a few years ago) and am gratified to see Pope Benedict help her get her footing again. I think tightening down on annulments, and returning the RCC to a more traditional stance is wonderful, beneficial and a beacon to the world.

Rev North

 

[Ahimsa]

In all seriousness and without attempts at humorous hyperbole…yes. I have been doing a fair amount of reading and sole searching. I had developed dis satisfaction with the liberal bent of my denomination and began research.

PS I am a Gen Xer and I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the Roman Catholic Church (especially that of a few years ago) and am gratified to see Pope Benedict help her get her footing again. I think tightening down on annulments, and returning the RCC to a more traditional stance is wonderful, beneficial and a beacon to the world.

Rev North

“Reverend Doctor North…Rev. Doc N orth…Rev. N Ortho Doc…Rev. N Orthodoxy…Reverend In Orthodoxy”. I’m beginning to see the connection.

 

[Sixtus]

Estebob posted:

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

 

[Ahimsa]

Estebob posted:

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. .

Or, alternatively, one could say that the Church that tried to absolutize the authority of the Roman Pontiff into one of supremacy and universal jurisdiction, rather than the traditional primacy of “first among equals”, is the one that left.

 

[MariaG]

Or, alternatively, one could say that the Church that tried to absolutize the authority of the Roman Pontiff into one of supremacy and universal jurisdiction, rather than the traditional primacy of “first among equals”, is the one that left.

But to say that one has to really ignore the ECF, in my opinion.

Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race from the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than boldness (*Hom. de decem mille talentis *3, PG III, 20. Cited by Dom Chapman, Studies in the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 74).

cor·y·phae·us –noun, plural -phae·i 1.the leader of the chorus in the ancient Greek drama. 2.the leader of an operatic chorus or any group of singers

First among equals? Sure, but also the leader of the leaders. And if one is a leader among the leaders, that means that eventually, in the case of disagreement, the first among the equals leads the choir and brings the choir back into harmony.

 

[Ahimsa]

But to say that one has to really ignore the ECF, in my opinion.

Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race from the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than boldness (*Hom. de decem mille talentis *3, PG III, 20. Cited by Dom Chapman, Studies in the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 74).

cor·y·phae·us –noun, plural -phae·i 1.the leader of the chorus in the ancient Greek drama. 2.the leader of an operatic chorus or any group of singers

First among equals? Sure, but also the leader of the leaders. And if one is a leader among the leaders, that means that eventually, in the case of disagreement, the first among the equals leads the choir and brings the choir back into harmony.

None of that has anything to do with papal universal jurisdiction. See Vatican One:

Wherefore we teach and declare that,

• by divine ordinance,
• the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
• this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
• episcopal and
• immediate.

• Both clergy and faithful,
• of whatever rite and dignity,
• both singly and collectively,

• are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
• not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
• but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Did any ECF hold to the above definition of the papacy?

 

[guanophore]

I read this sort of comment repeatedly on this forum. Yet, it requires that one read back into history with the type of logic found in George Orwell’s 1984 to arrive at the conclusion you do. But then, Orwell might have been correct in saying that “he who controls the present controls the past”.

The Catholic Church you speak of is something that evolved over time. The Church which was catholic (meaning universal) was that because the Church understood itself as one body, not divided. And as far as I am concernd there still exists a catholic (again meaning universal, not meaning connected to Rome) Church in that all Christians belong to one body in belonging to Christ. But being catholic doesn’t make us Catholic. When you start using Catholic with a capital “C” then you are talking about something different than the original catholic Church. So, the Catholic church might have emerged from the catholic Church, but they are not the same. The catholic Church of today includes all manner of Christians from many different ecclesiastical communities. How paradoxical that the Catholic church in declaring itself the one true church, actually rejects the catholicity of the Church that it centuries ago emerged from.

I don’t think so. the oneness was based in oneness of doctrine and faith. That does not exist between the other ecclesiastical communities. All Protestants reject at least some essential element that made the early church catholic. The main one being unity with the Bishop of Rome, who was seen as a pillar and bulwark of that oneness and doctrine. This occurred because both Peter and Paul resided and taught there, and that Apostolic see had a double whammy!

 

[guanophore]

Churches with historical continuity to the present:
“Nestorian” (Church of the East)
“Monophysite” (Jacobite Syrian, Coptic, Ethopian, Armenian, Malankara)

Churches/movements with no continuity to the present (though some of the same ideas keep popping up)
Montanist
Marcionite
Valentinian
Novatian
Donatist
Arian

These are just the main ones!

Your reading of Church history appears to be quite superficial.

On the contrary, it is clear from reading church history that NONE of the above ecclesiasial communities were Christian. By definition, each one of these, having been ruled heresy, is not Christian. They do not represent the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles in one or more important aspects.

The exact same? In every respect? Are you sure you want to claim this? Of course the things you think are important are the same (“you” here meaning Catholicism in general, informed by excellent patristic scholarship–you personally may think somethings are the same that really aren’t).

With regard to doctrine, yes. Practices change, even as we read in the NT with the wearing of veils, length of hair, etc.

But there are other things that may be important to the rest of us that have changed. One obvious example is communion in both kinds. Another is the mode of election of bishops, and the growth of papal power generally. Another is access to Scripture for laypeople. Attitudes and practices have changed dramatically over the centuries, so no, you cannot claim that Catholicism today is identical to Catholicism in the early centuries.

Edwin

Apples and oranges. The doctrine is the same, though some of the practices do reflect the culture.

 

[MariaG]

None of that has anything to do with papal universal jurisdiction. See Vatican One:

Did any ECF hold to the above definition of the papacy?

What do you mean none of that has anything to do with papal universal jurisdiction? It shows that Peter was the leader of leader.

• by divine ordinance,
• the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
• this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
• episcopal and
• immediate.

• Both clergy and faithful,
• of whatever rite and dignity,
• both singly and collectively,

• are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
• not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
• but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Did any of the ECF teach the following?

Different words but some of the same concepts here.

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

and here,

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra , and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

From CA Library Peter’s Primacy.*

 

[Ahimsa]

It shows that Peter was the leader of leader. Did any of the ECF teach the following?

Different words but some of the same concepts here.

Peter as leader of leaders is one thing. The papacy’s universal jurisdiction is quite another. Catholic theologian Congar writes:

“The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of
Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western
bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not
connected with a recognition of the principle
of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view
that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East
jealously protected its autonomous way of life.
Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of
legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith
and to ensure communion between the two parts
of the church, the Roman see representing and
personifying the West…In according Rome a
“primacy of honour”, the East avoided basing this
primacy on the succession and the still living
presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was
achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down
to the middle of the eleventh century.”

Yves Congar, “Diversity and Communion”
Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982, pp. 26-27.

“Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover,so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter,that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostomand of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene.”

Yves Congar, “After Nine Hundred Years”
New York: Fordham University, 1959, pp. 61-62.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t think so. the oneness was based in oneness of doctrine and faith. That does not exist between the other ecclesiastical communities. All Protestants reject at least some essential element that made the early church catholic. The main one being unity with the Bishop of Rome, who was seen as a pillar and bulwark of that oneness and doctrine. This occurred because both Peter and Paul resided and taught there, and that Apostolic see had a double whammy!

I don’t see all Catholic being one with regard to doctrine and faith, not if you mean 100% unanimity. But you don’t. As you said,all Protestants reject at least some essential element. But that adjective “essential” appears to be the key. For it sounds as if one can reject some “unessential” elements and everything is still hunky-dory. So, who determines what is and isn’t essential? Well, of course, the Catholic church does. But, again, what if “catholic” is understood to mean “universal” rather than affiliated with Rome. By that definition of “catholic” what would we find to be the “essentials”? Would they be the same as what the Catholic church proclaims to be essential? I think not. So, if to be catholic truly means to be universal, and if we find that there are indeed some universals held by all who belong to Christ, then is not that the list of essentials, and if we all hold to them are we not one in faith and doctrine after all.

I suggest that your definition of catholic is just too narrow is all, and for that reason your understanding of our oneness is not inclusive enough. I know you are aware that Christ is bigger than the Catholic church, so let me encourage you to embrace all of your catholicity, not just a portion of it.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I don’t think so. the oneness was based in oneness of doctrine and faith. That does not exist between the other ecclesiastical communities.

Yes, and you hinted at it guanophore, I would further say that the oneness was also a oneness of doctrine.

Not that there weren’t questions that came up that needed to be settled, but regarding what our ancestor Christians believed, they all believed it in unity.

Or at least that’s the picture many of the Early Fathers paint of their times. We would paint a very different picture today, unfortunately.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t see all Catholic being one with regard to doctrine and faith, not if you mean 100% unanimity. But you don’t. As you said,all Protestants reject at least some essential element. But that adjective “essential” appears to be the key. For it sounds as if one can reject some “unessential” elements and everything is still hunky-dory. So, who determines what is and isn’t essential? Well, of course, the Catholic church does. But, again, what if “catholic” is understood to mean “universal” rather than affiliated with Rome. By that definition of “catholic” what would we find to be the “essentials”? Would they be the same as what the Catholic church proclaims to be essential? I think not. So, if to be catholic truly means to be universal, and if we find that there are indeed some universals held by all who belong to Christ, then is not that the list of essentials, and if we all hold to them are we not one in faith and doctrine after all.

I suggest that your definition of catholic is just too narrow is all, and for that reason your understanding of our oneness is not inclusive enough. I know you are aware that Christ is bigger than the Catholic church, so let me encourage you to embrace all of your catholicity, not just a portion of it.

Grace Seeker,

In a way you are correct. Not all Catholics believe in moral and faith teaching of the Church. However, what the Catholic Church has defined as doctrine or part of the deposit of faith cannot change. A Catholic may disagree yes.

In Protestant Churches, the teachings of morality differ from denomination to denomination. I know some Protestant churches support abortions (which are liberal and claim to be Christian), while others do not support it. The Catholic Church has strongly oppose abortion since the beginning of Her foundation. The Didache in Chapter 2 verse 2: you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

The Church also condemn the use of contraception. This itself has develop overtime through the advancement of medical history. When contraception was introduced in the modern world, the Catholic Church opposed it. The Protestant Churches for a while oppose it and consider it sinful until the 1930s. By the 1960s, all Protestant denomination no longer consider contraception as sinful.

The Catholic Church likes to defined morality issues and faith issue. Fr. Loya, a Byzantine Catholic priest once said. “Why do you Latin Rite, like to define doctrines?” In response, the Latin Rite priest answered. “Why do you E. Rite like to call them mysteries rather than define them.”

I’m paraphrasing Fr. Loya’s statement. As you can see, the CC likes to defined doctrines concerning moral and faith issues. Catholics are obligated to to obey the moral laws of the Church, and accept all truths of the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church.

You don’t find any other churches who defines doctrines as we Catholic do.

Catholics are warn not to believe in anything contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which were given to us by Jesus Christ himself, through his Apostles, and their successors the bishops.

Any Catholic who support abortion in anyway, are ex-communicated. These Catholics does not represent the truth teachings of the Catholic Church. They are wolves dress in sheeps clothing, deceivers; servant of the Evil One.