Pope: Only One "True" Church

Second Statement In A Week Taking Ideological Steps Away From Vatican II

(AP)  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.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week that the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

In the document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary — which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains — the Vatican repeated that position.

"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 Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the new document.

"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."

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.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, American Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the Congregation.

In fact the only theologian cited by name in the document as having spawned erroneous interpretations of ecumenism was Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian who was a target of the former Cardinal Ratzinger's crackdown on liberation theology in the 1980s.

Regardless, the timing of the document came less than four days after Benedict revisited another key issue from Vatican II, as he revived the Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

[bo_leggs]

Was your last tirade addressed to me or SinginRick? If it was addressed to me, I have consistently told the Truth. If you don't want to believe, that's your perogative. Your failure to accept the truth does not make me a liar. Once again, where are your sources? I have provided mine because I know them to be truthful. One can only assume that your statements are not true since you refuse to provide yours. You remind me of the atheist who was walking in the woods. He came upon a couple of bear cubs playing. Realizing that he could sell them to a zoo and make a lot of money, he grabs them and stuffs them in a sack. About that time Momma comes along. She knocks him to the ground and is about to devour him when he cries out, "Oh, God help me!" Suddenly everything freezes and God asks him what he wants. Knowing that he has consistantly denied God's existence, he realizes there is little chance the Lord will help him, so he asks the Lord to make the bear a Christian. With that, poof, the action resumes and the bear stops, makes the sign of the Cross, and says, "Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts ... End of story, and end of the atheist.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by bo_leggs at 06:33 PM : Jul 13, 2007

Rick,

I'm familiar with your troll routine and it's not any more impressive now that it was three months ago.

What other people think of me is totally irrelevant.

You are a known liar and troll. Those are facts.

But, keep on trolling since it is (apparently) the only outlet you (currently) have for your self-hatred and anger.

From this point on, you'll have to troll without me. I used up my troll baiting quota a week ago.

[bo_leggs]

It doesn't matter what you call me. The fact is that you have not shown your statements as being factual. Oh, I do hope that Hoots saw that you have reverted back to your original state.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by bo_leggs at 05:34 PM : Jul 13, 2007

Now that you have identified yourself to be a troll, I correct my earlier assessment of you being a dogmatist.

You have been placed in my troll file.

[bo_leggs]

Sorry, Tuck, you have only posted your statements without any substantiating sources. On the other hand, I have indicated my sources. You did list a website several times in your effort to prove there is no God. SinginRick and I have both visited your website, but you have refused to visit any of the sites Rick listed. In the web searches I have done regarding the subject, I have no even once seen any listing that even remotely contained your "facts," which is unfortunate, because I would really like to see something, anything, from your point of view. The fact is, it just isn't there. Or are you going to say that the Catholic Church is in control of internet, too.

[tuckerndfw]

Sorry tuck. I should have written "the facts as you see them". My apologies. Hoots.

Posted by hootsmun at 04:26 PM : Jul 13, 2007

No apology necessary, you have not offended me at all.

I was concerned that you (and others) would be left with the (false) impression that bo_leggs had actually posted a fact.

Hope the baby is feeling better.

[hootsmun]

Sorry tuck. I should have written "the facts as you see them". My apologies. Hoots.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by hootsmun at 04:03 PM : Jul 13, 2007

Actually, Hoots, when I read your comment about "facts," that was just too much.

bo_leggs has yet to post "facts," bo_leggs posts propaganda and calls it facts.

I do not intend to continue the circular argument, my primary purpose was to correct the false statement bo_leggs posted as "fact."

There is no "winning" with a dogmatist. The "facts" are whatever the dogmatist twists them to be.

[bo_leggs]

Oh, Tucker, you are soooo lost.

[hootsmun]

"Golly, Hoots, it sounds like you are in agreement with Tucker. Could you be as misguided as him? ".

This is not a surprise Bo_leggs. I wondered how long it would be before your sarcasm and silly remarks re-surfaced. I see the discussion has restarted with tuck, so I'm off. Bye boys. I won't say "May the best man win", because I know who the best man is - and it's Jesus Christ. Hoots.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by bo_leggs at 03:51 PM : Jul 13, 2007

On the contrary, you have posted Catholic church propaganda that you have taken from different sources. The source for that information is the Catholic church, regardless who repeats it.

Catholic church propaganda posted on Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica or anywhere else is still propaganda.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by bo_leggs at 03:40 PM : Jul 13, 2007

The fact is that no one knows much of anything about the "early Christian church." There is very little credible evidence available.

Anyone, including me, you, the pope, preacher, priest or anyone else who claims to know what occurred between the 1st and 4th centuries is a liar.

There is insufficient factual information available to make a rational judgment. Religious scholars continue to debate the subject today.

What we do know for a fact is that in 325 CE, a pagan Roman Emperor convened a meeting of people he personally chose for the purpose of establishing a single religious doctrine to be used throughout the Roman Empire.

In summary, that means Roman Emperor Constantine established the Catholic church as we know it in 325 CE.

There is no other factual information available to make any other determination.

Catholic church propaganda is not factual nor is it reliable.

[bo_leggs]

Tucker, I have used facts from several different sources, not all of which are Catholic. You have continued to spout misinformation which you propose as fact, when you have never once cited the source of your supposed facts. You are correct in stating that this is a circular argument, but you are the one with the phony facts.

[bo_leggs]

I found this on MSN Encarta:

First Council of Nicaea

Held in 325, this first ecumenical council was convened by Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome, to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ (see Arianism). Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire, 318 attended the council. The Nicene Creed, which defined the Son as consubstantial with the Father, was adopted as the official position of the church regarding the divinity of Christ. The council also fixed the celebration of Easter on the Sunday after the Jewish Pesach, or Passover, and granted to the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt authority in the East in the fashion of Rome's quasi-patriarchal authority, which was not, as sometimes erroneously stated, the same as that of the pope. In this granting of authority lay the origin of the patriarchates throughout the church.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by bo_leggs at 03:22 PM : Jul 13, 2007

I rebutted your original propaganda with facts. Which I have consistently done.

To which you responded with more propaganda. A process you clearly intend to continue.

That is called a "circular argument" and is pointless.

[bo_leggs]

Here is an interesting website. It lists the date and founders of the various Christian denominations. And, it's not Catholic.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_den1.htm

[bo_leggs]

Golly, Hoots, it sounds like you are in agreement with Tucker. Could you be as misguided as him?

[bo_leggs]

In 312 A.D., Constantine marched on Rome, in an attempt to take over control of the Western Empire. Arrayed against him were the forces of Maxentius, four times as strong. Constantine%u2019s battlefield conversion is described by Ecclesiastical Historian Eusebius, in his 4th-century %u201CThe Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine%u201D:
After having a similar vision of Christ in his sleep, Constantine makes %u201Cthe priests of God his counselors.
Constantine, of course, goes on to defeat Maxentius, to assume total control of the Western Empire.
Constantine becomes a strong supporter and learned student of Christianity. However, he delays being baptized %u2013 a common practice in the fourth century. While it was well known among the Bishops of Christianity that their enthusiastic emperor was not baptized, he was, to say the least, %u201Cassigned some slack%u201D:

[tuckerndfw]

"Constantine at that time had converted to Christianity."

Posted by bo_leggs at 04:40 AM : Jul 13, 2007

"When at last (Constantine) felt the approach of death he received baptism, . . ."

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

Constantine was not a "Christian" when he convened the Council of Nicaea, he was a pagan.

The Catholic church has been generating propaganda for over 1,500 years, beginning with its creation in 325 CE by a pagan Roman Emperor.

Catholic church propaganda is not factual, nor is it reliable.

[yummydiego]

Re: Herr Pontiff's anti-V2 poison pills....was that his personal HUMAN view of things, or uttered officially as God's voice on Earth? It might also be a sign of the coming of the ANTI POPE, who must rear his ugly head before all is said and done. 1) Christian churches circa PRE-anti V2 had participatory shares of being the actual BRIDE of Christ. Circa POST-anti V2 now diminishes evangelicals as being but pieces of the wedding gown. 2) Tonight's Men's Fellowship concluded, NO! We are, rather, offspring/children of the marriage and not downgraded shreds of fabric. 3) Fetishistic, theo-zealot Papacy goons are akin to Billy Carter. The Vatican thinks they are Jimmy Carter and that non-Catholic (Apostles Creed, lower-case "catholic"/universal church bodies) persons are like Billy Carter, black sheep of the family peddling Billy Beer. On the contrary! Evangelicals are having to deal with the embarrassment of their Catholic papal relatives making stupid remarks that are injurious.