Am I missing something or did the Pope really do this.

[PuritanCovenanter]

R. Martin Snyder
You are not real churches, Pope tells Protestants - World - brisbanetimes.com.au You are not real churches says Pope....

Wow, I am dismayed how the media has deleted most of their articles on the Popes declaration that anything outside of the Catholic Church can be called an ecclesia. (the church of God). I just googled the story that took precedence a few months ago and they are mostly gone. Wow, That is weird since it was such a big story then. I am not usually a paranoid anti-anything person but this is weird. The Pope made a lot of people mad back then with this declaration and it is basically gone from the news. What happened?

 

[Michael Doyle]

Ya Randy, I remember this from 2007 and thinking, wow, what a things to say. However, as I have become more familiar with church history, as I am sure you are, I thought, well, thats of course the natural progression based upon the council of Trent and if they are consistent then that has to be their position.

It is kinda spooky that there is omissions of articles concerning this statement, as it is quite newsworthy I would think to the secular community.

 

[Herald]

I have no problem with Papa Ratzi saying this. As Michael indicated, the RCC is just being consistent with what they believe. It helps to further sharpen the lines of distinction between us. That is a good thing.

 

[yeutter]

I just checked it out on my current favorite browser, Bing , and found lots of references to the pope saying that protestant churches are not real churches. He believes that a bishop in apostolic succession is essential for an ecclesial community to be a real church.
That is also what is behind his current outreach to Anglo Catholics.

 

[SueS]

This sentiment isn't new with the current pope - it's been around forever. I remember as a child when my Catholic stepmother informed me that the Catholic church was the "true church" just before I was forced into years of unwilling attendence at said "church". I've seen her and other family members sit in Protestant services with sneers on their faces and have seen children from a Catholic homeschool group run wild in a Baptist church while their parents did nothing to rein them in. A Catholic friend of my dh is constantly making a certain disparaging remark about our pastor (it's just a matter of time before I explode in his face over it). This is a belief that is ingrained into the Catholic soul.

 

[Galatians220]

Sue's right. This slur has been around forever; I was taught it in Catholic school in the '50s.

Margaret

 

[JBaldwin]

R. Martin Snyder
You are not real churches, Pope tells Protestants - World - brisbanetimes.com.au You are not real churches says Pope....

Wow, I am dismayed how the media has deleted most of their articles on the Popes declaration that anything outside of the Catholic Church can be called an ecclesia. (the church of God). I just googled the story that took precedence a few months ago and they are mostly gone. Wow, That is weird since it was such a big story then. I am not usually a paranoid anti-anything person but this is weird. The Pope made a lot of people mad back then with this declaration and it is basically gone from the news. What happened?

This bothers me, too, in the sense that by deleting articles mentioning the Pope's true position of the RCC, the media is actually helping the RCC accomplish their agenda of reuniting all faiths under the control of the RCC.

I recently spent some time looking on the Vatican website and reading about the Pontifical Council for promoting Christian Unity. While it states its purpose is to promote unity among churches and dialogue with the WCC (World Council of Churches), the Pope is making comments such as the one referenced above that none of the other churches in the world are the true church. It's ultimate goal (if you talk to RCC priests) is to reunite all the churches under the RCCs control. What I find very interesting is that the RCC is not a member of the WCC. If they think they are the one true church, then why would they?

 

[Zenas]

That's ok, I don't mind him saying that.

 

[johnbugay]

I don't know that anyone is deleting such articles. But I do agree that it's a good thing that the lines are being drawn more sharply.

Here is the "question and answer" from the original document:

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Here is the original document:

Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church


Here also is some official "commentary":

Commentary on Responsa ad quaestiones


And of course, Ratzinger's own comment on this:

Address to the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[MMasztal]

I have no problem with Papa Ratzi saying this. As Michael indicated, the RCC is just being consistent with what they believe. It helps to further sharpen the lines of distinction between us. That is a good thing.

Exactly. And the distinctions between the us and the RCC are real and important. For a lot of years these important distinctions were ignored and there was a zeitgeist of foggy ecunemicism and a vapid, shallow theology permeating Christianity.

Add an apparent resurgence of Calvinism with the Southern Baptists (with much thanks to Al Mohler's courage) and even in the popular press with Time magazine's recent article, we may be on the brink of a new reformation. I even hear complaints from my students about the lack of good biblical teaching in their churches and that they would prefer attending a more biblically and Christ centered church.

I hope that the "ecumenical movement" will meet its demise and go down as a failed social experiment (along with political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism)

3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME

 

[au5t1n]

This was always the Catholic Church's view until Vatican II, when they changed their tune and decided that Protestants were partial churches with partial sacraments. Ever since Benny here became Pope, he's been doing everything in his power to convince Catholics that Vatican II never happened.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

I don't think anyone should be surprised by this kind of thing. Talk to any Catholic who knows what his church believes, and he will claim that it was not until the sixteenth century that anyone denied the role of apostolic succession as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for valid ordination.

Perhaps one of our resident experts on all things Roman could point us to some statements of the early church fathers to refute this claim? I'm not a patristics scholar (nor do I play one on TV), but I seem to remember coming across refutations before, and I'm sure someone like John Bugay could produce them practically from memory.

 

[DMcFadden]

I like things as sharply delineated as possible. With the squishy middle going for the Evangelicals and Catholics Together, it is kind of nice to remember that there ARE differences between us and Rome.

 

[Galatians220]

Ever since Benny here became Pope, he's been doing everything in his power to convince Catholics that Vatican II never happened.

Cool. No Vatican II... That would mean that guitar masses never happened ( ), we never ditched our chapel caps, nuns didn't suddenly become "Sister Bob" and "Sister Marie Frank," priests didn't *all* become "funny Father Ed," all of those ad nauseam arguments about whether a mass that happened to start at 3:59:20 p.m. on Saturday could "count" for Sunday were figments of sick imaginations, etc., etc. The "In Search Of..." segment about "the world's shortest mass that included a homily" that my brother and I tried to cook up never happened. The Saturday night Vegas nights, the writing-our-own-vows-at-our-weddings nonsense: all not true; the Nine First Fridays and the Ten First Saturdays and novenas: all still around for the "hocus pocus" crowd to enjoy.

I'd be fine with all that. And I'd still be so gone from the RCC!

Margaret

 

[johnbugay]

Talk to any Catholic who knows what his church believes, and he will claim that it was not until the sixteenth century that anyone denied the role of apostolic succession as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for valid ordination.

Perhaps one of our resident experts on all things Roman could point us to some statements of the early church fathers to refute this claim? I'm not a patristics scholar (nor do I play one on TV), but I seem to remember coming across refutations before, and I'm sure someone like John Bugay could produce them practically from memory.

Jason, since my name came up, I'd say that you have allowed the Catholics to frame this issue in an improper way. Please keep in mind that the early Christian writers meant a particular thing when they talked about "apostolic succession," and that, as Calvin said, "Satan, in the papacy, has polluted everything God had appointed for our salvation." It is true in this case as well. Rome has polluted what was once a right doctrine of apostolic succession.

 

[johnbugay]

Perhaps one of our resident experts on all things Roman could point us to some statements of the early church fathers to refute this claim?

Here again is the Roman Catholic claim:

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.

Ii is interesting that neither Berkhof nor Reymond "refutes this (Roman) claim" with "statements of the early church fathers."

Berkhof simply says (580):

This (Roman Catholic Episcopal System) pretends to comprrise, not only successors of the apostles, but also a successor to Peter, ... This system also conflicts with Scripture, which recognizes no such primacy of Peter as that on which the system is built, and distinctly recognizes the voice of the people in ecclesiastical affairs. Moreover, the claim of the Roman Catholic Church, that there has been an unbroken line of succession from the time of Peter down to the present day, is contradicted by history. The papal system is, both exegetically and historically, untenable (bold emphasis added).

And Reymond (906):

As for the claim of the Roman Catholic Church and other episcopal church bodies that their authority has come to them through an unbroken line of succession from the apostles themselves down to the present, it is enough to say, first, that such a claim is simply unsupported by history and not verifiable, and second, that even were such an unbroken succession true in some instance, such episcopal succession per se would convey no particular authority or guarantee apostolicity by one so graced. Mere unbroken apostolic succession is not the New Testament criterion for ministerial authority (bold emphasis added).

 

[Marrow Man]

Ratzinger is an old school pope. The statement isn't surprising at all.

I don't consider the Roman church to be a "real church" either. If the gospel is not being preached and false sacraments being administered, I don't see how it can be anything but a synagogue of satan.

I am not saying that a person cannot come to Christ in a RCC (and I know of someone who did). This is the exception, not the rule. And there were Christians even in Sardis.

 

[SemperEruditio]

It might seem new because John Paul II didn't say it but ask any Catholic and they would tell you they are the one "true faith." Because after all Jesus told Peter.....I guess they miss the part about also being called the devil...

 

[BertMulder]

This is interesting reading about the history of the papacy:

The History of Protestantism - Volume First - Book First - Progress From the First to the Fourteenth Century

 

[JBaldwin]

For what it's worth, I googled articles on this topic and found messages such as "Article has been deleted".

 

[ewenlin]

For what it's worth, I googled articles on this topic and found messages such as "Article has been deleted".

Gasp! Conspiracy! Get ready for the next Dan Brown book.

 

[Jake]

For what it's worth, I googled articles on this topic and found messages such as "Article has been deleted".

Might just because they were from services like the AP. Content syndicated often expires on the web after an alloted period.

 

[Rich Koster]

Maybe Ratzi is using Benny Hinn's publicist to clean up the loose ends .

 

[Marrow Man]

Maybe Ratzi is using Benny Hinn's publicist to clean up the loose ends .

Rich, that may me fall over laughing!

 

[bookslover]

I remember the pope saying this, just a few months ago.

The Roman Catholic Church has never changed its position on this. For them, Protestant churches are not true churches of Christ. It's no surprise that Ratzi has reiterated this position.

It's just another demonstration of just how truly awful and pointless the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" document was, back in the '90s. Just become some RC official signed it, doesn't mean he actually meant it.

Makes me want to ask J. I. Packer and Charles Colson, "So, guys, how's that ECT thing workin' out for ya?"

The RC Church has always seen it's ultimate goal as bringing all Christians, of whatever denomination, under the thumb of Rome, which sees itself as the only true Christian church.

If I remember rightly, at about the same time that ECT was being signed by the RC guys, the RC church was also concluding a similar pact with Hindus, I think. I have no doubt that the RC church guy who signed that one didn't mean it, either...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

If I remember rightly, at about the same time that ECT was being signed by the RC guys, the RC church was also concluding a similar pact with Hindus, I think. I have no doubt that the RC church guy who signed that one didn't mean it, either...

I didn't know that. A similar pact with Hindus? I don't get it. At least the doctrine of the Trinity is kept in tact between Protestants and Roman Catholics. What does Hinduism have to do with the Trinity?

 

[au5t1n]

If I remember rightly, at about the same time that ECT was being signed by the RC guys, the RC church was also concluding a similar pact with Hindus, I think. I have no doubt that the RC church guy who signed that one didn't mean it, either...

I didn't know that. A similar pact with Hindus? I don't get it. At least the doctrine of the Trinity is kept in tact between Protestants and Roman Catholics. What does Hinduism have to do with the Trinity?

Well, they do have a triad that stems from one god-being of sorts, but I would hope Rome would have more sense than to equate a pagan triad with the Christian Trinity. Not going to put money on it, though.

 

[Brian Withnell]

I don't see why this surprises anyone. If the RCC has a different gospel, then they would look at the true gospel as being a different gospel, even as we look at the doctrines the RCC holds as being a different gospel (even if some do find faith in the real gospel through them inadequately teaching what they really believe).

 

[Reformed Thomist]

The 'ecumenical', Qu'ran-kissing, Baptist delegate-having papacy of John Paul II blurred the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on Protestant churches/communions for a lot of people -- including many Roman Catholics. Benedict is just restating that sobering position, which Vatican II did not negate, in-keeping with the 'neo-traditionalism' (allowing for the Latin Mass again, cracking down on the liberal/homosexual cultures dominating American seminaries and religious orders, etc.) of his papacy.

The Roman Catholic ECT'ers were/are definitely dyed-in-the-wool John Paul II people. The late Richard John Neuhaus consistently referred to the late pope as 'John Paul the Great' in the pages of his magazine.

 

[JennyG]

For what it's worth, I googled articles on this topic and found messages such as "Article has been deleted".

Gasp! Conspiracy! Get ready for the next Dan Brown book.

It does sound pure conspiracy theorist.
However, a few years back I was in the habit of catching the crack-of-dawn BBC radio 4 news (I stopped because I grew to hate having my waking thoughts infiltrated)
Once or twice I heard items that cast a questionable light of some sort on the church of Rome. I expected to hear more on the later bulletins, but....nothing. The stories sank without trace.
This happened often enough that I began taking notice, even eventually noted one or two down in my diary, but of course I have no comprehensive record so it remains anecdotal! It did happen though.
The highly respected Daily Telegraph, also, has a largely RC senior editorial staff and that fact is strongly reflected in its reporting.
I hear there have been major scandals in the US over child abuse in Catholic dioceses....? If you read the Telegraph you would not really know it!