Pope: Other Christians not true churches

hairyheretic

I came across this news story on another forum, and thought I'd post it here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - 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 that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old 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.

In the latest 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 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, U.S. 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.

JimiTime

Well the fact that he said that they are the true church because they can trace their bishops to the apostles did it for me. If thats what makes them 'true', I'm safe in my heracy.

Red Hand

Pepsi doesn't taste exactly the same as Coca Cola either, but they're both coke.

I really cannot get my head around these factions in religions. The phrase "One true God" wears a little thin when you have three major umbrella religion systems, with thousands of offshoots, all saying that they are in communion with the One True God.

robindch

Ah, talk of liberals, identity, erroneous interpretations, true churches, and the rest. I wonder if the pope posts here?

PDN

The pope is teaching Roman Catholic doctrine. A non-story IMHO.

The Mad Hatter

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Pepsi doesn't taste exactly the same as Coca Cola either, but they're both coke.

Er...no, but they're both cola...

I agree with PDN here, this is nothing to get excited about. It's a catholic belief that catholicism is the correct religion. Is this surprising?

Michael G

PDN wrote:

The pope is teaching Roman Catholic doctrine. A non-story IMHO.

Of course it is a non-story. Catholics (including me) believe that other Christian faiths are incomplete. Other Christian faiths believe that the Roman Catholic church teaches things that can't be supported by Scripture. Orthodox Christians believe that Catholics went astray a thousand years ago, but that we are schismatics not heretics. Atheists think we are all talking to an imaginary friend. Agnostics think that if there is a God, he (or she, as they prefer to put it) will welcome them as fellow readers of the Irish Times.

A non-story indeed.

Asiaprod

The Mad Hatter wrote:

I agree with PDN here, this is nothing to get excited about. It's a catholic belief that catholicism is the correct religion. Is this surprising?

Ditto for me. We have the same problems in Buddhism. I have no idea how many different variations we have, but we are all Buddhists:), even though we have tremendous infighting as to which variant is the one true one. I tried, but I cannot think of one religion that has only the one variant.

robindch

AsiaProd wrote:

I tried, but I cannot think of one religion that has only the one variant.

hmmm... Hubbard's scientology? I don't believe they've had a schism yet, but Hubbard's been dead only twenty years. Give 'em time.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

hmmm... Hubbard's scientology? I don't believe they've had a schism yet, but Hubbard's been dead only twenty years. Give 'em time.

Does anybody have any good stats on who is winning the wars for the new recruits?
CSO for Ireland shows some Protestant and other Christian variants are picking up. [Of course unreligious is growing the most] .What about internationally where the new markers are?

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

hmmm... Hubbard's scientology? I don't believe they've had a schism yet, but Hubbard's been dead only twenty years. Give 'em time.

Ha, trust you to find one. In my defense, it would take a wild stretch of my imagination for me to consider scientology as even coming close to being a religion. Its a money machine and a personality cult, just like Aum in Japan.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote:

hmmm... Hubbard's scientology? I don't believe they've had a schism yet, but Hubbard's been dead only twenty years. Give 'em time.

Ha! I have images of orthodox scientologists going around wearing their hair like Tom Cruise, and splitters waiting for the second coming of Hubbard...

mossieh

Asiaprod wrote:

In my defense, it would take a wild stretch of my imagination for me to consider scientology as even coming close to being a religion. Its a money machine and a personality cult, just like Aum in Japan.

Since when have religions been anything other than money machines and personality cults? I'd say it fits the bill quite nicely tbh.

It is a bit of a non-story though... Religious leader in "my religion is better than your's" shocker... **edit** as PDN pointed out already, almost verbatim, had I read the thread properly...apologies...

Vas_Guy

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm

Says it all

Run_to_da_hills

I cannot understand why a billion people would be so gullible to listen to that man with “itching ears” and believe everything he says. He is speaking on behalf of a religion that seems to change its rules and regulations with the weather. I find his statement most offensive.

paulc2

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I cannot understand why a billion people would be so gullible to listen to that man with “itching ears” and believe everything he says. He is speaking on behalf of a religion that seems to change its rules and regulations with the weather. I find his statement most offensive.

Well, I find your criticism of a billion people, their religion, and their spiritual leader, most offensive. I am also most offended by every pronouncement made by Muslims in relation to Jesus and their Allah. And also by every statement made by presidents and prime ministers who proclaim their country to be the greatest in the world, etc. Not to mention all the other religious leaders who make the same claim, as has been mentioned above.

Are you really offended by the Pope's assertion? If so, presumably, you were also offended before he made this latest statement, as this has been the Catholic Church's stance for the last two millennia (the "One True Faith").

I don't mean to seem facetious, but you must be most offended by something new every day?

Run_to_da_hills

paulc2 wrote:

Well, I find your criticism of the religion of a billion people, and their spiritual leader, most offensive. I am also most offended by every pronouncement made by Muslims in relation to Jesus and their Allah. And also by every statement made by presidents and prime ministers who proclaim their country to be the greatest in the world, etc. Not to mention all the other religious leaders who make the same claim, as has been mentioned above.

Are you really offended by the Pope's assertion? If so, presumably, you were also offended before he made this latest statement, as this has been the Catholic Church's stance for the last two millennia (the "One True Faith").

I don't mean to seem facetious, but you must be most offended by something new every day?

The Catholic Church claim to have over one billion members.

Your Popes do not read the Bible, they publicly state that Islam and Jehova are the same God. This is impossible because Islam is of the Antichrist because it totally denies Jesus as the son of God.

"In his weekly general audience in late May of 1999, Pope John Paul II addressed Muslims in a series discussing "interreligious dialog." He quotes from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 841 which states, "... together with us they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful, God."

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son". (1 John 2 vs 22)

kelly1

hairyheretic wrote:

I came across this news story on another forum, and thought I'd post it here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians

Hello, do you have a question or a point to make?

Noel.

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The Catholic Church claim to have over one billion members.

Your Popes do not read the Bible, they publicly state that Islam and Jehova are the same God. This is impossible because Islam is of the Antichrist because it totally denies Jesus as the son of God.

"In his weekly general audience in late May of 1999, Pope John Paul II addressed Muslims in a series discussing "interreligious dialog." He quotes from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 841 which states, "... together with us they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful, God."

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son". (1 John 2 vs 22)

Archbishop Desmond Tutu claimed that all three of the Abrahamic religions had a certain truth inside in the Irish Times Magazine piece last week. A lot of Christian figures have. Not just the Pope to be fair.

paulc2

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The Catholic Church claim to have over one billion members.

Your Popes do not read the Bible, they publicly state that Islam and Jehova are the same God. This is impossible because Islam is of the Antichrist because it totally denies Jesus as the son of God.

"In his weekly general audience in late May of 1999, Pope John Paul II addressed Muslims in a series discussing "interreligious dialog." He quotes from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 841 which states, "... together with us they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful, God."

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son". (1 John 2 vs 22)

I don't get the point of most of what you're saying, or how it follows the thread, but I'd agree that God, as described by Christians, and Allah, as described by Muslims, can't be the same. But that's neither here nor there.

philologos

Indeed and Yemenite Jews. ^^ Important point.

paulc I think you mean the image of the Islamic God is different to the Jewish / Christian image of God. But surely as you claim a new revelation you're fundementally changing God's image?

robindch

Small point of order here folks, "allah" is the Arabic word for "god", so for example, Arabic-speaking Palestinian christians will address their prayers to "allah" and not to "god".

...and related to that, could anybody suggest to me how prayers are routed from believer to deity? ie, what happens if a muslim prays in English to "god"? Is he praying to his islamic deity or the christian one?

Run_to_da_hills

paulc2 wrote:

I don't get the point of most of what you're saying, or how it follows the thread, but I'd agree that God, as described by Christians, and Allah, as described by Muslims, can't be the same. But that's neither here nor there.

Then you are basically disagreeing on what the Pope says, Benedict repeats the exact same again in Ankara Turkey Nov. 28, 2006 "‘Christians and Muslims must continue an open dialogue because they believe in the same God and agree on the meaning and purpose of life."

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible.

paulc2

Jakkass wrote:

paulc I think you mean the image of the Islamic God is different to the Jewish / Christian image of God. But surely as you claim a new revelation you're fundementally changing God's image?

I mean that God (Christian God) is not Allah. Whatever Allah is, it can't possibly be God. I don't know what you mean by the "revelation I'm claiming"...

robindch wrote:

Small point of order here folks, "allah" is the Arabic word for "god", so for example, Arabic-speaking Palestinian christians will address their prayers to "allah" and not to "god".

True, but I didn't refer to the language, nor was it my point. I said that the Muslims' Allah (capital 'A') is not the Christians' God. I wonder does the Pope really believe that they are the same - or that each religion believes in just one deity (though not the same). Christians are monotheists. Muslims are monotheists. But they're not the same mono theos. I could only imagine the blood that would run like rivers if the Pope was to say that.

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Then you are basically disagreeing on what the Pope says, Benedict repeats the exact same again in Ankara Turkey Nov. 28, 2006 "‘Christians and Muslims must continue an open dialogue because they believe in the same God and agree on the meaning and purpose of life."

Has the Pope specifically said that? Most of what the Pope says is very widely quoted, I could find only a couple of "independent" copies of the line you quoted above. Regardless, I refer you to my last point - I have my suspicions that he doesn't actually believe God and Allah are the same.

hairyheretic

kelly1 wrote:

Hello, do you have a question or a point to make?

Not particularly. I just thought the article might be of interest.

Run_to_da_hills

paulc2 wrote:

Has the Pope specifically said that? Most of what the Pope says is very widely quoted, I could find only a couple of "independent" copies of the line you quoted above. Regardless, I refer you to my last point - I have my suspicions that he doesn't actually believe God and Allah are the same.

Yes it has been said on a number of occasions and can be Googled and these statement along with Pope John Paul 2nd Kissing the Quran has upset Christians.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm

I doubt if any of the Popes would have kissed the Christian Bible back in the 1800,s "Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824"

philologos

paulc2 wrote:

I mean that God (Christian God) is not Allah. Whatever Allah is, it can't possibly be God. I don't know what you mean by the "revelation I'm claiming"...

What I mean is the following.

The Jewish Torah and Tanakh were written. Then the New Testament came along and proposed Jesus as the son of God, and God Incarnate. Theres a difference in the image of the Jewish God, and the Christian God.

Then the Holy Qu'ran is written. It proposes new prophets and suggests that God is one and Jesus was merely a prophet. This proposes a new image of God with Muhammad as the most holy prophet.

These 2 revelations change the image of God. Thats why you can't associate the Islamic image of God to the Christian one. Correct?

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Yes it has been said on a number of occasions and can be Googled and these statement along with Pope John Paul 2nd Kissing the Quran has upset Christians.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm

I doubt if any of the Popes would have kissed the Christian Bible back in the 1800,s "Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824"

Maybe John Paul the 2nd was a more tolerant pope. Apologised for the Holocaust in Jerusalem etc. I don't see any problem with him kissing the Qu'ran because it shares a lot of common ground with the Bible.

paulc2

Jakkass wrote:

What I mean is the following.

The Jewish Torah and Tanakh were written. Then the New Testament came along and proposed Jesus as the son of God, and God Incarnate. Theres a difference in the image of the Jewish God, and the Christian God.

Then the Holy Qu'ran is written. It proposes new prophets and suggests that God is one and Jesus was merely a prophet. This proposes a new image of God with Muhammad as the most holy prophet.

These 2 revelations change the image of God. Thats why you can't associate the Islamic image of God to the Christian one. Correct?

I would call the second one an alleged revelation, at most. Even to follow the line that Jesus was a mere prophet, to follow up with Mohammed as his 'successor' would be a seriously retrograde step, viewed objectively. But I digress, I think we're arguing different points: there is a difference between God and Allah. Not merely that Christians and Muslims see the same entity in different ways. They each worship a different entity. Unless the mystery of God is such that he can embody the characteristics of both God and Allah. If that's the case, I give up.

robindch

paulc2 wrote:

I said that the Muslims' Allah (capital 'A') is not the Christians' God. I wonder does the Pope really believe that they are the same - or that each religion believes in just one deity (though not the same). Christians are monotheists. Muslims are monotheists. But they're not the same

Well, the principal attributes of the two deities are identical -- omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, been around since the beginning of time, made the universe and its contents, responds to prayers, provides life after death to believers etc, etc. There are disagreements about what the two deities are supposed to have done (sent Jesus for judgement, sent Mohammad as prophet etc), but I don't believe that there are any fundamental disagreements about the basic nature of the deities.

I do accept of course, that people don't believe that the deities are the same, but I don't see how a deity could determine which deity was the object of a believer's prayers, given that the words 'allah' and 'god' mean the same thing (which is why I asked the other question up above) and the deities are to a greater or lesser extent the same.

philologos

paulc2 wrote:

I would call the second one an alleged revelation, at most. Even to follow the line that Jesus was a mere prophet, to follow up with Mohammed as his 'successor' would be a seriously retrograde step, viewed objectively. But I digress, I think we're arguing different points: there is a difference between God and Allah. Not merely that Christians and Muslims see the same entity in different ways. They each worship a different entity. Unless the mystery of God is such that he can embody the characteristics of both God and Allah. If that's the case, I give up.

I'd argue that they are the same deity, for the following reasons. And I'm a Christian. What I'd question is Muhammad's accuracy and it's closeness to the Christian revelation and if Muhammad was really a prophet.

1. Creation stories are similar.
2. Prophets / main figures the same (with the exception of Muhammad, and the divinity of Christ). e.g Abraham -> Ibrahim, Lot -> Lut, David, Solomon
3. Allah shows similar qualities to YHWH, forgiveness, merciful, while being the punisher of sins.

Run_to_da_hills

Jakkass wrote:

Maybe John Paul the 2nd was a more tolerant pope. Apologised for the Holocaust in Jerusalem etc. I don't see any problem with him kissing the Qu'ran because it shares a lot of common ground with the Bible.

By kissing the Quran he spat in the face of Jesus Christ.

Islam teaches that Jesus was a messenger of God, not the son of God. Muslims deny the He is Almighty God come in the flesh. (John 1:1-14, I John 4:1,2). They deny that He is divine. (Col 2:9) They deny that He died on the Cross for our sins (Most believe the Judas died in his place). They deny that He rose from the dead. (Matt 26: 28, John 19:20) They deny that He is the final, conclusive revelation of God. (Heb. 1: 1-2)

Allah is an impersonal being, impossible to approach or comprehend. The Bible's God befriends men like Abraham (Is. 41:8) and talks with them (Gen 18:23ff)! He loved us so much He sent His only begotten Son to die for us! (John 3:16)

Allah is a god of fear and terrorism that commands destruction upon those who refuse to convert to Islam. The Bible's God delights to show His boundless mercy. His gospel is the "Good News" of peace and forgiveness.

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Allah is a god of fear and terrorism that commands destruction upon those who refuse to convert to Islam. The Bible's God delights to show His boundless mercy. His gospel is the "Good News" of peace and forgiveness.

I take it you haven't read the Qu'ran if you make statements like that.

Run_to_da_hills

Jakkass wrote:

I take if you haven't read the Qu'ran if you make statements like that.

I know the Basics of Islam and any devout Muslim cannot dispute me on the following facts.

1/ They totally deny Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
2/ They deny the resurection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind.
3/ They deny the "Trinity" or 1 John 5 verse 7)
4/ Allah required the works of Mohammed to complete his words of judgment
to man. The God Of The Bible sent His son who did the finished work of
grace for man.

There is no possible way that Jehova of the Christian Bible is the same "God" as Allah of the Quran.

philologos

We just clarified that Arab Christians use the word "Allah" for God too.

I'm just saying that Allah is a similar image to the Christian God, it's just that there are a few fundemental differences. He still shares a lot of the same qualities and characteristics. I don't think Allah is a totally different deity, more that Muhammad misunderstood God.

Run_to_da_hills

Jakkass wrote:

We just clarified that Arab Christians use the word "Allah" for God too.

I'm just saying that Allah is a similar image to the Christian God, it's just that there are a few fundemental differences. He still shares a lot of the same qualities and characteristics. I don't think Allah is a totally different deity, more that Muhammad misunderstood God.

Arab Christians that are bornagain Bible believing Christians who have accepted Christ as their saviour totally reject the Quran outright. The word "Allah" just happens to be the arabic for God.
My point of argument is that the "God" of the Quran is not the same God as that of the Bible.

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Arab Christians that are bornagain Bible believing Christians who have accepted Christ as their saviour totally reject the Quran outright. The word "Allah" just happens to be the arabic for God.
My point of argument is that the "God" of the Quran is not the same God as that of the Bible.

There are elements of the Qu'ran that remain faithful to the Christian concept of God. Theres more common ground than there are differences. The differences are of paramountal importance though. I question Muhammads accuracy of understanding God, but I still hold to the notion that there is a lot of the Qu'ran that does remain faithful to the Christian concept of God.

mountainyman

Jakkass wrote:

There are elements of the Qu'ran that remain faithful to the Christian concept of God. Theres more common ground than there are differences. The differences are of paramountal importance though. I question Muhammads accuracy of understanding God.

To misquote the Big Lebowski
Mohammad : . Nobody ****s with the Mohammad.
Walter Sobchek: Nine year olds, Dude.

MM

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Arab Christians that are bornagain Bible believing Christians who have accepted Christ as their saviour totally reject the Quran outright.

So you have to be Evangelical "born again" to be a Christian?

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

So you have to be Evangelical "born again" to be a Christian?

Depends what you mean by 'Christian'.

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3)

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'Christian'.

Quote:
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3)

In fairness, just because you call yourself 'Born again Christian' doesn't really make much odds. i mean, 'Jehovahs witnesses'. Does that make them Gods witnesses on earth?

PDN

JimiTime wrote:

In fairness, just because you call yourself 'Born again Christian' doesn't really make much odds. i mean, 'Jehovahs witnesses'. Does that make them Gods witnesses on earth?

Exactly, just calling yourself something, such as 'Christian' doesn't mean you are one.

philologos

PDN wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'Christian'.

Sure baptism is the process of being born again.

Bottle_of_Smoke

loyalist input

strychnine

Vas_Guy wrote:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm

Says it all

As a protestant i couldn't let the dribble in this link go without a response.

As was said way back at the start of this thread, this is a total non story. We've known that the roman church does not recognise us since the reformation, and their lack of recognition of us is mirrored straight back by our belief that the theology rome teaches and the way they conduct themselves is just simply wrong and not christian like. I shouldn't have to bring up the corruption, nepotism, sex abuse cases and all the rest of what rome does wrong, but people need to be reminded that the reformed churches exist for very legitimate reasons.

Every Protestant knows that Jesus founded the church in 33 or whatever year it was. Indeed this is key to what we believe. "We believe in one holy catholic church" (The Apostles Creed) Whats key here is what the church was founded on and what it should continue to profess in its teachings.

kelly1

strychnine wrote:

...the theology rome teaches and the way they conduct themselves is just simply wrong and not christian like. I shouldn't have to bring up the corruption, nepotism, sex abuse cases and all the rest of what rome does wrong, but people need to be reminded that the reformed churches exist for very legitimate reasons.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

strychnine wrote:

Every Protestant knows that Jesus founded the church in 33 or whatever year it was. Indeed this is key to what we believe. "We believe in one holy catholic church" (The Apostles Creed)

Which one church are you referring to?

strychnine wrote:

Whats key here is what the church was founded on and what it should continue to profess in its teachings.

Again, which church are you referring to?

BTW, according to Christ himself, the Church was founded on Peter.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

Coincidentally, I stumbled across this quote:

The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginng, which the Lord gave, was preached by the apostles and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded, and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.

-- St. Athanasius of Alexandria

gerbilgranny

Just saying that our much-loved Parish Priest (who is a rock of good sense) said yesterday that he read the Pope's document, and doesn't think the Pope was saying the R.C. Church is any better/holier than any other faith - but he also said that the Pope was unwise in the way he presented his views, and he'd be better off having some better advisers.

On a personal note, I'm Catholic, but also equally am a member of an Evangelical church. Both have good things going for them.

And Jesus would be appalled at our petty divisions and disagreements.

Love God, love people - and when we've accomplished all He told us to do, in the gospel, well, then maybe we can sit around and discuss the finer points of our 'doctrines'.:p

Jesus Wept

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Pepsi doesn't taste exactly the same as Coca Cola either, but they're both coke.

worst analogy ever

They are both cola's.

Coke is a brand and company name.

philologos

gerbilgranny wrote:

Just saying that our much-loved Parish Priest (who is a rock of good sense) said yesterday that he read the Pope's document, and doesn't think the Pope was saying the R.C. Church is any better/holier than any other faith - but he also said that the Pope was unwise in the way he presented his views, and he'd be better off having some better advisers.

On a personal note, I'm Catholic, but also equally am a member of an Evangelical church. Both have good things going for them.

And Jesus would be appalled at our petty divisions and disagreements.

Love God, love people - and when we've accomplished all He told us to do, in the gospel, well, then maybe we can sit around and discuss the finer points of our 'doctrines'.:p

I think your parish priest is a rock of good sense too from reading that.

kelly1

gerbilgranny wrote:

And Jesus would be appalled at our petty divisions and disagreements.

Love God, love people - and when we've accomplished all He told us to do, in the gospel, well, then maybe we can sit around and discuss the finer points of our 'doctrines'.:p

Hello Gerbilgranny, for anyone who's serious about doing God's will, finding the truth surely must be vital?

There are marked differences in doctrine between the churches that can't be ignored. Religion shouldn't be a pick and mix affair. Of the vast number of Christian churches, how do you decide which teaches the Truth? I think its essential to ask oneself, why am I a member of my particular church? How can I be certain that it teaches the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

One chuch teaches that holy communion is merely blessed bread and wine while another teaches that It is Jesus Himself. The difference is no trivial matter.

John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

God bless,
Noel.