PDA

View Full Version : In a World of Religious Diversity...


Jilly
07-11-2007, 11:00 AM
Is this really something that needs to be "RE emphasized by the Catholic Church?"

Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’


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.

‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
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.

‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
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.

Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.

“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”

tp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/)

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 11:04 AM
I know some Catholics that are thrilled with this assertion of what the RCC once was, still is and the Latin Mass being reintroduced. They feel it restores the Church's spiritual integrity.

I simply can't understand the allegations that its Jews that are having a problem with this, whoever they are per this article. It's none of their business. Frankly, I doubt most Jews have even given it a second thought though.

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Nikki's gonna be pissed.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 11:08 AM
I know some Catholics that are thrilled with this assertion of what the RCC once was, still is and the Latin Mass being reintroduced. They feel it restores the Church's spiritual integrity.

I simply can't understand the allegations that its Jews that are having a problem with this, whoever they are per this article. It's none of their business. Frankly, I doubt most Jews have even given it a second thought though.

wtf?

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 11:14 AM
My bad...I thought there was a line, saying Jews were concerned about because I skim read it. There are other articles stating this is a "blow to Jews" as well which I don't understand. I just confused it with the other articles and the denominations here.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 11:20 AM
My bad...I thought there was a line, saying Jews were concerned about because I skim read it. There are other articles stating this is a "blow to Jews" as well which I don't understand. I just confused it with the other articles and the denominations here.

You don't see how it's a blow to all faiths, everywhere??

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 11:35 AM
You don't see how it's a blow to all faiths, everywhere??
I can understand how some will take it like that, but no it need not. I doesn't validate other faiths in a pantheistic sense. But it's really nothing new. The RC has never reversed certain dogmas, including that there is "no salvation outside" of the RCC. It's been so deemphasized that most RC's don't even know that's a central tenet of Roman Catholicism.

If other denominations claim to not believe in a Pope then why should they care or be effected by this? It need not mean others can't believe otherwise. Respect for another's belief need not mean agreement or approval. It just means courtesy. I can see people from both sides creating conflict from it.

BTW here's a BBC article on the claim it's a blow to Jews:
I only saw the title at first...there's a bit more here.

Pope Benedict's plans to revive the Latin Mass is causing concern among Catholic and Jewish groups about relations between their faiths.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6585247.stm
Excerpts:
The old wording has none of the Vatican Council thinking that reversed long-standing anti-Jewish views in the Church. Vatican II brought about a revolution in Catholic thinking, highlighting the ancient Jewish roots of Christianity and affirming God's love for the Jews.

[This part I didn't know about:]
Concern by some groups is now focused on the Good Friday liturgy according to the Tridentine missal, which contains a prayer "For the conversion of the Jews". It is true that this only refers to one prayer that is said on one day of the year.

The prayer reads: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ."

I mean really, if that's true about the prayer for the Jews, then how is this different than Protestant Dispensationalists like Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson views that encourage war for the defense of Israel, as it will bring back Christ which is supposed to convert and save them. It seems the RC prayer is more peaceful. I'd rather the press not make a big deal about this aspect anyway as that's inflammatory too.

Adept Havelock
07-11-2007, 11:51 AM
You don't see how it's a blow to all faiths, everywhere??

I can understand some Jews being upset. One of the prayers for that Latin Mass includes requests to "take the veil off Jewish hearts" and show mercy "even for the Jews".

Strikes me as a bit condescending and insulting and it's not even my faith. And I know condescending and insulting. :) Perhaps the Jews should pray for the Catholics to see the light and reject their false messiah. :shrug:

Heh...considering he's also reinforcing his previous statement from an earlier document (Dominus Iesus or something like that) that other churches aren't "true churches" and thus lack the means of salvation, it ought to be kind of amusing when the extremist branch of Protestant Fundamentalism realizes the Pope is saying they are going to hell.

Then again, I've met a few that believe Catholics are destined for hell because they are "idolators" or some such nonsense.

Doesn't really bother me one way or another. To me it's like arguing that breaking a mirror is 7 years bad luck, or 7 times 7 years. JMO.

[Grabs popcorn and settles back]

This post brought to you by the Space Pope.

.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 12:22 PM
How much diversity should the Catholic Church recognize?

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 12:27 PM
How much diversity should the Catholic Church recognize?
Interesting that you ask this, as even within their own they have branches that emphasize certain aspects over others which they still recognize: Franciscans, Dominicans etc.

This is no different than most religions who feel they are the "true" one including proselytizing atheists.

Adept Havelock
07-11-2007, 12:35 PM
How much diversity should the Catholic Church recognize?

I don't know. Some claim the more they recognize, Di verse it gets.


This is no different than most religions who feel they are the "true" one including proselytizing atheists.

Agreed. All are equally arrogant. I'm certainly an arrogant bastard at times, but I wouldn't suggest that my choice of views on the Supernatural is the one way, the only way, etc. Heck, for all I know the Jehovah's Witnesses have it right and we are all screwed. :shrug:

I'd only suggest that it works for me. :)

patteeu
07-11-2007, 12:40 PM
Interesting that you ask this, as even within their own they have branches that emphasize certain aspects over others which they still recognize: Franciscans, Dominicans etc.

This is no different than most religions who feel they are the "true" one including proselytizing atheists.

I just can't imagine a real religion that doesn't think of themselves as the "true" one. I don't see why this is controversial. It doesn't mean that Catholics are going to war with Baptists or anything.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 12:40 PM
I don't know. Some claim the more they recognize, Di verse it gets.

ROFL

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 12:56 PM
but I wouldn't suggest that my choice of views on the Supernatural is the one way, the only way, etc.
You might not suggest it, but could you believe it?

Taco John
07-11-2007, 12:59 PM
The only two truths there are about religion:

1. They can't all be right.

2. None of them have it right.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 01:46 PM
My thought is this: In a world that is completely diverse religiously, is this really something one of the Foremost religious leaders in our world should be coming out and EMPHASIZING? In the position of power that the pope is in, wouldn't a better use of that power not be to exercise some sense of authority by claiming to have the ONLY TRUE Faith, but rather calling for unity among all the differing churches, to promote ideals that are Christ-like - love, compassion, etc..... If there is inequality (which claiming to have the only truth definitely brings forth), then can there be a possiblity of unity?

Adept Havelock
07-11-2007, 01:55 PM
You might not suggest it, but could you believe it?


Doubtful. As there are many that choose to embrace the supernatural, there is clearly "another way".

It's just one I choose to dismiss for many reasons I've discussed before.

I just can't imagine a real religion that doesn't think of themselves as the "true" one.

Interesting. You can't imagine that Buddhism or Hinduism is a real faith? How about Shinto, Voodoo, or other Animist faiths?

They think they are "true". AFAICT, they just don't claim to be the only true one, as the Pope is assserting.

I miss Father Guido Sarducci.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kO8x8eoU3L4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kO8x8eoU3L4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

CHIEF4EVER
07-11-2007, 01:58 PM
My thought is this: In a world that is completely diverse religiously, is this really something one of the Foremost religious leaders in our world should be coming out and EMPHASIZING? In the position of power that the pope is in, wouldn't a better use of that power not be to exercise some sense of authority by claiming to have the ONLY TRUE Faith, but rather calling for unity among all the differing churches, to promote ideals that are Christ-like - love, compassion, etc..... If there is inequality (which claiming to have the only truth definitely brings forth), then can there be a possiblity of unity?

Jilly, while I agree that exclusivism is not in keeping with the teachings of the CHRIST, I also maintain that without him there is no hope.

Logical
07-11-2007, 02:02 PM
I just can't imagine a real religion that doesn't think of themselves as the "true" one. I don't see why this is controversial. It doesn't mean that Catholics are going to war with Baptists or anything.

Wait, they are not just saying they are the true religion, they are saying they are the only true Christian religion, huge difference.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 02:41 PM
Jilly, while I agree that exclusivism is not in keeping with the teachings of the CHRIST, I also maintain that without him there is no hope.

There's a difference in saying without him or without his teachings... one should be able to recognize that his teachings cross religious languages and expressions.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 03:00 PM
Wait, they are not just saying they are the true religion, they are saying they are the only true Christian religion, huge difference.

No. There's no difference at all between the two statements. They mean exactly the same thing: That if you are not a Catholic, you're screwed.

StcChief
07-11-2007, 03:24 PM
No. There's no difference at all between the two statements. They mean exactly the same thing: That if you are not a Catholic, you're screwed.

According to the Catholics. :rolleyes: as they have been brain washed to believe in talking to their man in a confessional box.

He can't do anything. Try praying the man upstairs.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 03:47 PM
I just can't imagine a real religion that doesn't think of themselves as the "true" one. I don't see why this is controversial. It doesn't mean that Catholics are going to war with Baptists or anything.

Every religion makes a claim to being the exclusive way to God. If they don't make it explicitly they make it logically, by issuing claims about essential beliefs that contradict those of other faiths.

For example, orthodox Christianity says that God is a trinity. Islam calls this belief shirk, a sin, polytheism. So obviously, if orthodox Christianity holds one thing about the very nature of God and Islam calls holding that belief sinful, both faiths cannot be correct. They directly contradict each other on essentials.

Another example would be the Qu'ran denying the divinity of Jesus. Without the divinity of Jesus, there is no Christian gospel left to preach, and so it's impossible that both of these faiths could have it right. Either he was or he wasn't, they can't both logically be true. At most, one of these faiths is right.

Anyway, there are an infinite number of examples but I think the point is made.

listopencil
07-11-2007, 03:51 PM
Meh. It's a marketing concept to me. Kind of like Gucci implying that all of those other purses aren't good because they don't have "Gucci" printed on them. And, in the long line of intolerance preached by so many diverse faiths over the centuries, it's a minor thing in my opinion.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 03:54 PM
Every religion makes a claim to being the exclusive way to God. If they don't make it explicitly they make it logically, by issuing claims about essential beliefs that contradict those of other faiths.

For example, orthodox Christianity says that God is a trinity. Islam calls this belief shirk, a sin, polytheism. So obviously, if orthodox Christianity holds one thing about the very nature of God and Islam calls holding that belief sinful, both faiths cannot be correct. They directly contradict each other on essentials.

Another example would be the Qu'ran denying the divinity of Jesus. Without the divinity of Jesus, there is no Christian gospel left to preach, and so it's impossible that both of these faiths could have it right. Either he was or he wasn't, they can't both logically be true. At most, one of these faiths is right.

Anyway, there are an infinite number of examples but I think the point is made.

Some faiths may disagree with other faiths and their beliefs, or even within itself it disagrees, but that doesn't mean it doesn't see the truth in that faith or the validity of that faith - why people would believe in it and recognizing that they have that right. I think that's the difference here... Disagreeing with a faith does not mean condemnation of it or excluding it as a path to God.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 03:57 PM
Meh. It's a marketing concept to me. Kind of like Gucci implying that all of those other purses aren't good because they don't have "Gucci" printed on them. And, in the long line of intolerance preached by so many diverse faiths over the centuries, it's a minor thing in my opinion.

I could agree with that, but I just don't think that it was a good use of his power at this point in our world and I feel like what he said was contrary to a Christian way of life. And in today's world, a comment like that is not a minor thing. I think it's up to Christianity, in a way, to demonstrate a way of living together that is peaceful and harmonious. I think Christians should be an example of that and that we shouldnt' be adding to the mess that is out there already.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Some faiths may disagree with other faiths and their beliefs, or even within itself it disagrees, but that doesn't mean it doesn't see the truth in that faith or the validity of that faith - why people would believe in it and recognizing that they have that right. I think that's the difference here... Disagreeing with a faith does not mean condemnation of it or excluding it as a path to God.

Not in all matters, no. But if faith A says that belief X about Y is an essential, and faith B says that belief B about Y is an essential, then they are excluding each other. And you can find those kinds of exclusions between any two religions.

At most, only one of them is substantially right.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:07 PM
So my denomination has this saying and I love it, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." And I think that just because we disagree on essentials at times, does not mean we can't have a sense of understanding that what is true for one is not always true for the other and having a sense of tolerance and respect for the Other in their belief. But I'm an idealist, so what do I know?

Example: a basic tenet of my faith is that EVERYONE should be able to take of the Lord's Supper. A basic tenet of the Catholic faith is that ONLY Catholics be allowed to take of the Lord's Supper. Here's the deal...I'm ok with that. I'm ok with it because I can see why they believe it, because I have taken the time to get to know it, understand it. We can both be right.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:16 PM
I could agree with that, but I just don't think that it was a good use of his power at this point in our world and I feel like what he said was contrary to a Christian way of life. And in today's world, a comment like that is not a minor thing. I think it's up to Christianity, in a way, to demonstrate a way of living together that is peaceful and harmonious. I think Christians should be an example of that and that we shouldnt' be adding to the mess that is out there already.
Didn't Christ say something like "the path is narrow and few are the feet that walk upon it.?"

I happen to see some truth in all faiths as well, including Buddhism ( which has had the least violence historically). That doesn't mean there aren't falsehoods (imo). As for the RCC, they disagree with other denominations as to what is essential is all it means to me.

OTT, I'd think and accept that you're a Christian, just not a RC.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:19 PM
what is true for one is not always true for the other

This directly contradicts the creed of the denomination that you stated.

Furthermore, the idea that truth is whatever one person decides is comfortable to them is diametrically opposed to all of orthodox Christian theology.

Your creed says "in essentials, unity" but you have decided that there is no such thing as an essential.

And further, the idea that truth is a matter of interpretation is irrational. Truth is what it is, that's the very nature of truth as a concept. The ultimate truth of a certain thing has nothing to do with what some human decides about it. If something is true, it is true whether anyone believes it or not.


Example: a basic tenet of my faith is that EVERYONE should be able to take of the Lord's Supper. A basic tenet of the Catholic faith is that ONLY Catholics be allowed to take of the Lord's Supper. Here's the deal...I'm ok with that. I'm ok with it because I can see why they believe it, because I have taken the time to get to know it, understand it. We can both be right.

That's not a basic tenet of the faith, it's an ecclesiastical matter. A basic tenet is something that the mainstream of a religion says, "To be on the path to God, you have to believe this." I doubt seriously that your denomination would say that if you think non-Christians should be allowed to take communion then you are not saved. That means it falls under nonessentials/liberty.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:23 PM
it's not a creed....fyi

stevieray
07-11-2007, 04:24 PM
The Church that Jesus referred to is your heart..not a building.

I've always found it interesting that Jesus picked Peter to be the rock that he would build his Church(followers) upon...not the brilliant Paul, or the mystic John..but Peter...because he knew that after any trial or tribulation, Peter would humble himself and return to his faith.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Any other thoughts regarding what I said?

I mean, you are quoting Augustine as a prooftext but I think he would vehemently disagree with what you are saying.

In City of God he critiques other religions of his day pointedly. He sure didn't seem to think that what was true for him might not be true for them.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:26 PM
This directly contradicts the creed of the denomination that you stated.

Furthermore, the idea that truth is whatever one person decides is comfortable to them is diametrically opposed to all of orthodox Christian theology.

Your creed says "in essentials, unity" but you have decided that there is no such thing as an essential.

And further, the idea that truth is a matter of interpretation is irrational. Truth is what it is, that's the very nature of truth as a concept. The ultimate truth of a certain thing has nothing to do with what some human decides about it. If something is true, it is true whether anyone believes it or not.



That's not a basic tenet of the faith, it's an ecclesiastical matter. A basic tenet is something that the mainstream of a religion says, "To be on the path to God, you have to believe this." I doubt seriously that your denomination would say that if you think non-Christians should be allowed to take communion then you are not saved. That means it falls under nonessentials/liberty.

we just don't see eye to eye on this.... and I'm not sure I can articulate it because I am apparently not smart enough.

unity in essentials is not you are right and I am wrong... unity in essentials means....you maybe believe something to be right and it may be an essential to you...I believe something to be right and it is an essential to me...however...we work together anyway.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:28 PM
Any other thoughts regarding what I said?

I mean, you are quoting Augustine as a prooftext but I think he would vehemently disagree with what you are saying.

I am definitely not quoting Augustine. If you're referring to me?

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:34 PM
This directly contradicts the creed of the denomination that you stated.

Furthermore, the idea that truth is whatever one person decides is comfortable to them is diametrically opposed to all of orthodox Christian theology.

Your creed says "in essentials, unity" but you have decided that there is no such thing as an essential.

And further, the idea that truth is a matter of interpretation is irrational. Truth is what it is, that's the very nature of truth as a concept. The ultimate truth of a certain thing has nothing to do with what some human decides about it. If something is true, it is true whether anyone believes it or not.



That's not a basic tenet of the faith, it's an ecclesiastical matter. A basic tenet is something that the mainstream of a religion says, "To be on the path to God, you have to believe this." I doubt seriously that your denomination would say that if you think non-Christians should be allowed to take communion then you are not saved. That means it falls under nonessentials/liberty.

I also don't believe that a basic tenet of a faith is that "to be on the path to God, you have to believe this." But I think that's my denomination speaking...there are no "have to's", just "we think it's a good idea if..." But If one were to narrow that down for my denomination it would probably be anything un-Christ like is not a basic tenet of the faith...

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:35 PM
unity in essentials is not you are right and I am wrong... unity in essentials means....you maybe believe something to be right and it may be an essential to you...I believe something to be right and it is an essential to me...

That is exactly the opposite of what the motto/creed/whatever that you posted says. What you say is that we don't believe the same thing on an essential topic but we are both right. What the motto says is that we stand united on essentials, we can discuss nonessentials and believe as we will, but we are charitable with everyone. It says nothing about accepting all beliefs as fact. In fact, the very use of the word essential is an acknowledgement that some beliefs are NOT factual.


I am definitely not quoting Augustine. If you're referring to me?


You are, whether you know it or not... the "In essentials, unity..." quote was by Augustine of Hippo.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:37 PM
That is exactly the opposite of what the motto/creed/whatever that you posted says. What you say is that we don't believe the same thing on an essential topic but we are both right. What the motto says is that we stand united on essentials, we can discuss nonessentials and believe as we will, but we are charitable with everyone. It says nothing about accepting all beliefs as fact. In fact, the very use of the word essential is an acknowledgement that some beliefs are NOT factual.



You are, whether you know it or not... the "In essentials, unity..." quote was by Augustine of Hippo.

Over the years, that's not how I've interpreted that statement. Maybe I'm wrong. And if it is Augustine..i apologize... my denomination has always attributed it to Rupertus Meldenius...

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:38 PM
I also don't believe that a basic tenet of a faith is that "to be on the path to God, you have to believe this."

What, in your mind, brings salvation? Or if you prefer, what brings damnation? Or does either exist?

Jilly
07-11-2007, 04:42 PM
What, in your mind, brings salvation? Or if you prefer, what brings damnation? Or does either exist?

gah...that's a pretty loaded question.

I have a realized eschatology. I believe that salvation comes when we are all living in harmony and peace. I believe salvation is what it means in Greek - "wholeness". I don't believe in hell.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 04:43 PM
The Church that Jesus referred to is your heart..not a building.

I've always found it interesting that Jesus picked Peter to be the rock that he would build his Church(followers) upon...not the brilliant Paul, or the mystic John..but Peter...because he knew that after any trial or tribulation, Peter would humble himself and return to his faith.

I agree. It was precisely because Peter was such a flawed person. His weakness made him the perfect candidate.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:44 PM
Over the years, that's not how I've interpreted that statement. Maybe I'm wrong. And if it is Augustine..i apologize... my denomination has always attributed it to Rupertus Meldenius...

It's really of no consequence. The point I was making is that the essence of the statement as used by the fathers of the reformation meant that we need to hold fast to essential doctrines, that we can debate non-essential doctrines within the faith and those are ok to have disagreements on, and that we should be equitable toward everyone inside and out.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:45 PM
I believe salvation is what it means in Greek - "wholeness". I don't believe in hell.
Pretty cool. I like that. Wholeness.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 04:52 PM
gah...that's a pretty loaded question.

I have a realized eschatology. I believe that salvation comes when we are all living in harmony and peace. I believe salvation is what it means in Greek - "wholeness". I don't believe in hell.

Do you realize however, that if you don't believe in hell then there's no need for salvation from it. If you say there is no need for salvation, then your opinion is the exact opposite of the thesis of the Bible. The theme of the entire work is that sin separates us from God and that God sent Jesus Christ to provide us with a way back to Him.

It's fine to believe whatever a person wants to believe. But I find it curious that you were speaking of being a member of a Christian denomination but seem to reject every tenet of orthodox Christian theology. Do you see any contradictions here?

Do you think your clergyman would agree with your statement here? I could see that in a unitarian/universalist denomination but not a mainstream one.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 05:05 PM
LOL!!!! or clergy woman, right?

Umm...so I don't claim on this message board to speak on behalf of my church or the Christian faith. In seeing salvation as more of a completion of being whole, of restoration of harmony....then I can't really have a discussion with you about what you just said. I don't believe Salvation is a rescuing of anything, except from brokenness...which I believe is the theme of Jesus...is he not constantly rescuing people from brokenness? Did he claim, ever...to be saving people from the depths of hell (the fiery pit of damnation to which most of orthodox Christianity claims it to be)? Or did he simply say things, like "Your faith has saved you..." Saved you from what? that's right - the life you were living that was broken.

the way to salvation is walking in the way of Jesus. And it's not orthodox, what I believe, but i just refuse to reduce the cross to some sort of bridge between humanity and God that they drew for me in Sunday School... I refuse to see Jesus as some arrow pointing me to heaven... I see Jesus as a path... a way of living life...and a better way of living than I did before...

SLAG
07-11-2007, 05:31 PM
I love this Pope.

The reason for this statement is that too many Catholics have been preaching false ecuminism, they had become too friendly with other religions, some had even doubted the dogma of- Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus -

B16 by affirming that the Traditional Extraordinary Mass of the Roman Rite was never Abolished or forbidden, he is fighting the heresy of modernism and plans to restore the Catholic church to its full glory, Put an end to all the liberalism in the church.

We will now see the Liberals true colors, by confirming this a Catholic Dogma, and by restoring the Traditional Mass to its proper place, those Catholics that disagree will throw fits even though this has not affected them, if they have a problem with any of this then they are Heretic's and the truth must resound.

These liberal hypocrites will act as though the Pope is a renegade. Their point is that Popes John and Paul were led by GOD to carry the Church into the Second Vatican Council. Now they will somehow have to make the case that THIS pope is NOT being led by God. They will try, but their hypocrisy will come shining through, as it always does.

Those liberals are just bitter and obnoxious people if they object to this, because the point will be that no one has any reasons whatsoever to object. Those who have a kneejerk reaction to anything "pre-Vatican 2" can solve their problem by just staying away from it. They already have their Mass. They need to shut their liberal mouths if they object to this and let the traditional Catholics finally be pastorally cared for.

Taco John
07-11-2007, 05:40 PM
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Matthew 24:34


Apparently, the second coming has already taken place.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 06:01 PM
...those that disagree will throw fits...

The only folks who have tried to cause fits so far about this are the unbelievers. You'll be the exception among the believers if you take this discussion to the conclusion that you could take it.

No Christian here has contradicted Benedict's authority to speak for the RCC, SLAG. I'd encourage you to choose your words wisely.

SLAG
07-11-2007, 06:02 PM
The only folks who have tried to cause fits so far about this are the unbelievers. You'll be the exception among the believers if you take this discussion to the conclusion that could take it.

No Christian here has contradicted Benedict's authority to speak for the RCC, SLAG. I'd encourage you to choose your words wisely.
I was specifially speaking to Catholics that disagree not those of other faiths to clarify

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 06:04 PM
I was specifially speaking to Catholics that disagree not those of other faiths to clarify

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

patteeu
07-12-2007, 02:38 PM
Over the years, that's not how I've interpreted that statement. Maybe I'm wrong. And if it is Augustine..i apologize... my denomination has always attributed it to Rupertus Meldenius...

Assuming he's right and that it's Augustine, I bet you're wondering how you can trust your denomination to get it right on the big stuff if they can't get these minor-but-knowable facts right? Maybe a conversion to the one true religion of Jesus is in order. :shrug:

:p j/k :Poke: ;)

Jilly
07-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Assuming he's right and that it's Augustine, I bet you're wondering how you can trust your denomination to get it right on the big stuff if they can't get these minor-but-knowable facts right? Maybe a conversion to the one true religion of Jesus is in order. :shrug:

:p j/k :Poke ;)


LMAO Nice!!!