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.
Is the Pope correct, or just a big embarrassment?
We see the "True Christian" argument all time in this forum and mock it roundly. It's absolutely hilarious to see the Pope employ it in an official proclamation.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/ap/world/main3039566.shtml
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 [b]other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Is the Pope correct, or ju ...[text shortened]... it roundly. It's absolutely hilarious to see the Pope employ it in an official proclamation.[/b]The real question is: “Who cares?”
Not being flippant—there may be Catholics who care. There may be non-Catholics who care whether or not the RCC considers them “true” Christians, or “true” church, or whatever.
Originally posted by vistesd The real question is: “Who cares?”
Not being flippant—there may be Catholics who care. There may be non-Catholics who care whether or not the RCC considers them “true” Christians, or “true” church, or whatever.
Frankly, I don’t care.
I don't care either. The pope can say whatever he wants. It's obviously political.
Originally posted by vistesd The real question is: “Who cares?”
I think we all stand to learn something from investigating whether the Pope is correct.
Take me, for example. Were it true that all Orthodox churches are defective, while a church whose leader parades around in a souped-up SUV preaching duty toward the poor while his entourage sells vials of holy water as souvenirs is not defective, then my understanding of "defective" would stand in dire need of revision.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I think we all stand to learn something from investigating whether the Pope is correct.
Take me, for example. Were it true that all Orthodox churches are defective, while a church whose leader parades around in a souped-up SUV preaching duty toward the poor while his entourage sells vials of holy water as souvenirs is not defective, then my understanding of "defective" would stand in dire need of revision.
I currently doubt that you are in need of revision.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I think we all stand to learn something from investigating whether the Pope is correct.
Take me, for example. Were it true that all Orthodox churches are defective, while a church whose leader parades around in a souped-up SUV preaching duty toward the poor while his entourage sells vials of holy water as souvenirs is not defective, then my understanding of "defective" would stand in dire need of revision.
If I cared what he thought, being told Orthodox churches are defective wouldn't tick me off nearly as much as being told that the rest don't even count as churches, but merely ecclesiastical communities.
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.
Clearly, if you think you are right and everyone else is wrong, as does nearly every person calling themselves a Christian, then surely the Theology of everybody else is necessarily defective in your eyes.
Also, what does one mean by "true church". I seem to remember somewhere in the Anglican Sunday service where they say that it is the "one true church". Its not quite the same as saying that everyone else is not Christian but rather that they are not doing it 'right'.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/ap/world/main3039566.shtml
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 [b]other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Is the Pope correct, or ju ...[text shortened]... it roundly. It's absolutely hilarious to see the Pope employ it in an official proclamation.[/b]It's not a "true Christian" argument, though.
"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession _ the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.
[...]
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope _ a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.
"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said.
Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.
"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/ap/world/main3039566.shtml
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 [b]other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Is the Pope correct, or ju ...[text shortened]... it roundly. It's absolutely hilarious to see the Pope employ it in an official proclamation.[/b]So what's the big news here? All the CDF document does is reiterate Vatican II.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I think we all stand to learn something from investigating whether the Pope is correct.
Take me, for example. Were it true that all Orthodox churches are defective, while a church whose leader parades around in a souped-up SUV preaching duty toward the poor while his entourage sells vials of holy water as souvenirs is not defective, then my understanding of "defective" would stand in dire need of revision.
Your understanding of 'defective' (as with many other words used in English, and indeed any other, language) is clearly in need of revision. Not all words used in language have a single, univocal meaning (no matter how much your positivist mentality wishes it were so).
Oh, and can you provide proof that the Pope's "entourage" sells vials of holy water as souveneirs? I can get it for free at any Catholic church I know.
Oh, and can you provide proof that the Pope's "entourage" sells vials of holy water as souveneirs? I can get it for free at any Catholic church I know.
It was reported in Time magazine following the Pope's visit to Bavaria approximately 9 months ago. Do you deny that it happened?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It was reported in Time magazine following the Pope's visit to Bavaria approximately 9 months ago. Do you deny that it happened?
"The souvenir items run the gamut from fashion (a Ratzinger hat), to food (the Ratzi bratwurst), to alcoholic beverages (Benedict Beer) to china (Ratzinger teacups)."
"For €5, pilgrims can purchase a small bottle of holy water"
"And as if Ratzinger's divine boss -- Jesus Christ -- had never banished the merchants from the temple, the Catholic Church has its own fingers in the moneymaking pie."
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It was reported in Time magazine following the Pope's visit to Bavaria approximately 9 months ago. Do you deny that it happened?
I'm not denying anything; I'm just asking you to back up factual statements with evidence. Something wrong with that?
Calling out Catholics
11 Jul '07 03:53
Back to Top