Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[moches]

Okay, I am a Protestant, and when I heard this, I was very angry. But I am not here to complain. I want to debate, with a quote from the online version of the India Times:

NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYBODY. IF YOU ARE OFFENDED, I AM SORRY.

Originally Posted by The Times Of India

NEW DELHI: Pope Benedict XVI has ruffled feathers of the flock by saying orthodox churches are defective and that other Christian denominations aren’t true churches. His views are contained in a 16-page document of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released this week, in which he has also called for allowing wider use of the Mass in Latin. Many perceive the document as a blow to reforms initiated by the revolutionary Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

The council is considered a landmark reform movement within the Catholic faith that, among other major theological positions, phased out Latin Mass, allowed folk guitar at Mass instead of Gregorian chants, and effectively stopped looking at Jews, Muslims, and Christians of other denominations as heretics.

As a 35-year-old Rev Joseph Aloi Ratzinger, the current Pope, was one of its members. The wheel has come a full circle, with the leader of the Vatican taking a few steps that appear, to many, as a short march backward from the Vatican II reforms. Seen along with the Pope’s University of Regensburg lecture in September 2006, in which he associated Islam with violence, it would appear that the leader of the Vatican favours strong assertion of Catholic identity even if going purely by public reactions it alienates large sections of Muslims, Jews, and now, also Protestants.

There have been protests against the Pope’s observations across India. Mumbai-based Jesuit theologian Julian Saldanha, a supporter of the Second Vatican Council, says, "Stating that other Christian denominations were not truly churches is unnecessarily provocative. The Catholic claim that it continued the tradition of Christ and his apostles is strong, but many elements of tradition are also found in other churches." Orthodox and Protestant groups in Kerala have reacted more strongly. "No denomination is perfect. To say that Catholic Church is the only true church would mean it doesn’t need any reform, which is unacceptable," says KG Daniel, Bishop of East Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India.

"Since many years now, the Cathoic Church has been engaged in an ecumenical dialogue with other Christian churches. The Pope’s position is a setback to the dialogue process," says Orthodox theologian and member of the World Council of Churches Father KM George. Agreeing with him is Church of North India (CNI) general secretary Enos Pradhan, "We don’t owe allegiance to the Pope. CNI, which is autonomous, expressses shock at the Pope’s observations. All churches are the body of Christ. We are all guided by his teachings, and what the Pope has said is a great blow to the unity movement within the churches."

Secretary of Chhotanagpur Diocese of CNI in Ranchi PP Surin was surprised. "Our religious head, the Bishop of Canterbury, is often invited by the Pope. Had our churches been false, we wouldn’t have been invited by the Catholics to join hands or even allowed to proclaim Christianity." In Kohima, Rev Zhabu Terhuja, general secretary of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council, said, "A man of his stature should not have commented on the affairs of other churches." Archbishop Oswald Gracias of Bombay said, "I understand the reaction and would ask people to go deeply into the document. The fact is it is positively worded. It calls for dialogue and not increasing differences. The call for Latin Mass is because the people have themselves been clamouring for it."

Archbishop of Delhi Rev Vincent M Concessao said: "There are some who are confused by the post-Vatican II developments, and want clarity. There is no difference between Catholic and Orthodox churches except some of the rites," and adds, "If they (other churches) are critical, it isn’t helpful. But our respect for them does not diminish." Says Rev Dominic Emmanuel of Delhi Archdicoese, "His Holiness has called for is clarity and dialogue. One doesn’t dilute one’s position and clarity of thought is a must for dialogue."

(With inputs from Ashley D’Mello in Mumbai; Ananthakrishnan G from Thiruvananthapuram; Jaideep Deogharia from Ranchi and Oinam Sunil from
Guwahati)

The Pope's primary argument is that God never meant for the church to split, so therefore only the Catholic church is valid. But if you are a Christian, you should believe that God planned everything out from the beginning, and therefore God DID mean for the church to split.

Not only that, but the only reason the Orthodox church was formed was because the Catholics thought the Pope should rule all politics and the Orthodoxes believed church and politics should be seperate. So all the churches are the same basics with very slight differences in beliefs about politics, tribute, prayer, confessions, etc. And Protestantism was formed with the blood of many, many freedom fighters. If God meant for all of this to work, then he meant for ALL churches to be real Christian churches.

So this is my side, but I want to hear yours.

Sound off!

[Killer90_angel_Cat]

true but what if God didn't want to though>? what if he meant to keep the chrurch together? why seprate them though? it wouldn't make sense to me but hey.... I'm not a christian and I don't judge religions

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by moches

Okay, I am a Protestant, and when I heard this, I was very angry. But I am not here to complain. I want to debate, with a quote from the online version of the India Times:

I'm going to have to call misinterpreted/out-of-context on most of that article. Catholicism has had a pretty strong stance of referring to Protestants as (I believe this is the right term) "separated brothers and sisters", not "defective". We still recognize your baptisms and appreciate your faith in God, but we do believe in one true church, hence calling the others just separated.

After reading the entire quoted article, I must say that the writers have certainly picked the most liberal Catholics to interview. You'd be a fool to consider the things some of them say as official church teaching. Be sure to reread the second-to-last paragraph, with the quote from the Indian Archbishop.

The most important part of that Doctrine of Faith is the letting of churches celebrate mass in Latin, and that's not a blow to Vatican II's reforms; it's easing up on them since that's what people have asked for.

The Pope's primary argument is that God never meant for the church to split, so therefore only the Catholic church is valid. But if you are a Christian, you should believe that God planned everything out from the beginning, and therefore God DID mean for the church to split.

No, not at all. Very simple logical steps can be taken to show you why that's wrong (and I'll get back to you on that).

Catholics thought the Pope should rule all politics

Try again, bud.

So all the churches are the same basics with very slight differences in beliefs about politics, tribute, prayer, confessions, etc.

What are the "basics"? Where in the Bible does it say "It's okay if you don't follow me in this respect, because you follow me in this other respect"?

And Protestantism was formed with the blood of many, many freedom fighters.

Soooo..... spill a lot of blood in the name of your religion and you get recognized as an official Christian church by God?

What was the most recent count of Christian denominations in America? 25,000?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jok5rok]

As an Athiest (Yeah, boo Athiests), This is one of those things that made me give up the whole idea of God, when one man, a mortal man, can be chosen by many other mortal men to be the voice of god, it can't work. He's not the "voice" of god, he's not even close, he's just the head of the fathers of the Christian church.

I believe that if there is a god, he wouldn't really care what religion you practice, as long as you yourself are a good person to others, and you don't do wicked things.

When the definition of wicked comes down to: Gay marriage, Practicing a religion other than yours, or otherwise just being different, then something is wrong with that system of religion. When, by trying to "purify" Your own faith by shunning those of another faith, then you've really lost touch with "God". God should be considered something to look at in an admiring light, and an example to all others. Not some angry man-upstairs, looking down at scowling at every decision we make that isn't completely based upon the bible.

Being a good person is much more important that having the "right" faith. Thats what I believe.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by jok5rok

As an Athiest (Yeah, boo Athiests), This is one of those things that made me give up the whole idea of God, when one man, a mortal man, can be chosen by many other mortal men to be the voice of god, it can't work. He's not the "voice" of god, he's not even close, he's just the head of the fathers of the Christian church.

God gave men the full authority to do just that. I don't know why you think it "can't work" if God himself planned it.

I believe that if there is a god, he wouldn't really care what religion you practice, as long as you yourself are a good person to others, and you don't do wicked things.

That's all hippie good and all, but many religions have practices that are very much against his word.

When the definition of wicked comes down to: Gay marriage, Practicing a religion other than yours, or otherwise just being different, then something is wrong with that system of religion.

When someone thinks this is the definition of wicked, he must go and learn the first things about Christianity before criticizing it and letting his ignorance make a bigger fool of himself.

When, by trying to "purify" Your own faith by shunning those of another faith

I don't know if this is a tangent or not, but the Catholic Church isn't doing that by any stretch of the imagination.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[lonemaster]

I am a christan and when the pope said that several things went through my mind!
1. This world is unstable in everyway imagable!!!! Im guessin the pope has realized that the end of this world is almost here!!! But in sayin what he said was a mistake on his part not trying to offend any one and if you do get offened im soo sorry!!! (Rev 18:4-24) When you read these bible text try to meditate in the history of the church and world also include politics!!! The pope probly refering to this text has greatly misread it!!!! And anyone can choose to serve god in there own way but many dont go with what the bible saids of learning about god and livin according to his ways an exanple is found in psalms 115:4-8 when god told the israleites to abstane from ideols!!!

Once aguin im srry if you get offened but if you realy want to worship god but dont know how just read the bible i would siguest readin the book of prov. then revelations!!!

[GuidoHunter]

WHAT?!

Please read the CT rules about grammar and spelling before returning to clarify what you just said.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[gnr61]

@ lonemaster: welcome to the forums, PLEASE spellcheck, especially before posting in CT.

the OP: How can all churches be defined as "true Christian churches" if the "slight differences in beliefs" you mention are against what is truly in His will? Are they just as "Christian" as a church that follows His word completely?

As for the "It happened, so God wanted it to happen" bit, simple, universal Christian logic goes against that entirely. God does not want people to sin. He wants them to worship Him and follow the Bible. The fact that people -do- sin and -don't- follow the Bible doesn't mean that that is the way God wants it.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Also lmao at "STOP STOCKING ME"

[jewpinthethird]

All the article seems to portray is the current Pope saying "Hey, if it isn't under my authority, then it isn't really Christian."

The Eastern Orthodox Church never acknowledged the authority of the Pope or Papal Infallibility. They didn't believe in a centralized Church that dictated to the masses how they should interpret the Bible.

Whatever, it's not like the Pope has any real authority anyway.

[Relambrien]

RELIGION THREAD IN CT ALERT! EVERYONE TO THE BUNKERS!

Sorry, had to.

Anyway, this just sounds like what the Pope said is being misinterpreted. If that's the case, then the simple solution is just for him to reaffirm what he meant by making a public statement about the issue, and wording his statements differently. I don't know anything about the practices of the Catholic church however (I'm apatheist; I don't care about religion), so I don't know if it's illegal for the Pope to have to correct himself or something (not to say the Pope made a mistake in this case; apparently his wording was just confusing). I get a feeling it isn't, though.

Now to give an example of the apparent confusion:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

The most important part of that Doctrine of Faith is the letting of churches celebrate mass in Latin, and that's not a blow to Vatican II's reforms; it's easing up on them since that's what people have asked for.

Did this Doctrine of Faith -encourage- Latin Masses or simply provide increased -allowance- of Latin Masses? If the former, it would appear the Pope is trying to undo previous reform changes. If the latter, it would appear he is only relaxing restrictions. Clarification is needed.

I would like to know the exact part of the Doctrine of Faith which refers to other churches as "defective," so that I could tell how else the phrase could be interpreted. Unfortunately, due to my horrific Internet searching skills, I can't seem to find it. If anyone could, it would certainly be a great help to everyone in this thread.

[purebloodtexan]

So what's the Pope going to do? Build his own army of priests and overthrow all of the Protestant churches on the face of the planet?

Religion is a matter of faith, and nothing else. Do you think that you're doing as God wants you? Do you think that you're worshipping correctly?

Noone should tell you if your religion is true or not. Personally, I think I'm doing fine the way I am. I'm a Protestant, but that doesn't stop me from doing what I want (I rarely go to Church, for example. I don't think that I need to spend an eternity in there to prove my faith) to and I have the sense to know that there are a crapload of things that God can't do. Some people creep me out with their beliefs in God. Some just don't think that he exists. They believe in what they choose to believe, and you should, too.

[devonin]

Put very simply, compared to John Paul II, Benedict XVI is a very conservative pope. However, he still isn't as conservative as a large number of existing cardinals and bishops, who have, over the course of the office of JP II, and Vatican 2, started to distance themselves from the rest of the church organization.

Benedict XVI has of late started making overtures to the more conservative Catholic community, by relaxing some of the changes made by Vatican 2, allowing easier ability for parish priests to do things like conduct the old latinate mass (Previously, they would have had to go through a fairly long process of application up through the bishopric to get permission to do so) Benedict hopes to help reunify the existing Catholic faith.

While there are some issues that are perfectly valid that have been raised (For example, the old-style Latinate mass includes a prayer for the conversion of Jews, which has offended the Jewish community) the thing people need to realise is that members of the church are saying "We want to be allowed to do X if we want to" and the Pope, in the interests of unity has said "Ok, if you really want to do X, you can do X" That isn't encouraging, that is barely even giving permission. That is merely, as Guido said, a relaxing of certain restrictions, because the church seems to want those restrictions relaxed.

Originally Posted by Relambrien

I would like to know the exact part of the Doctrine of Faith which refers to other churches as "defective," so that I could tell how else the phrase could be interpreted. Unfortunately, due to my horrific Internet searching skills, I can't seem to find it. If anyone could, it would certainly be a great help to everyone in this thread.

Ask and ye shall find:

A document published in June of 2007, containing responses to various questions about the Vatican 2 reforms wherein Pope Benedict XVI "ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication."

Originally Posted by Congregation for the Doctrine Of The Faith

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[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

I can easily see how in some of the other half dozen languages this document was available in, the phrase "deprived of a constituative element" could easily be parsed as "defective"

[jewpinthethird]

Why do Protestants and Eastern Orthodox(ers?) care what the Pope has to say about anything? Wasn't the reason the whole Protestant Reformation took place (ignoring the nationalist and economic reasons) because the Catholic Church, including the Pope, was corrupt?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by devonin

the thing people need to realise is that members of the church are saying "We want to be allowed to do X if we want to" and the Pope, in the interests of unity has said "Ok, if you really want to do X, you can do X" That isn't encouraging, that is barely even giving permission. That is merely, as Guido said, a relaxing of certain restrictions, because the church seems to want those restrictions relaxed.

Yes.

I can easily see how in some of the other half dozen languages this document was available in, the phrase "deprived of a constituative element" could easily be parsed as "defective"

Surely, though, you agree that using the latter term is a horrible misrepresentation of the former, and was probably used in a rhetorical sense.

@Relambrien: First, the pope would have to have a reason to correct himself, which clearly isn't needed here. Clarifying what he said is of course okay, though I don't even think that is needed if the part devonin quoted is the section in question. This just sounds like a misinterpretation on the part of the Times of India rather than a miscommunication by Benedict XVI.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Surely, though, you agree that using the latter term is a horrible misrepresentation of the former, and was probably used in a rhetorical sense.

I certainly do agree, I'm just pointing out that depending on the skill of the translators, and the language of the document in question that the reporters for the Times of India were presented with, I can see how such a corruption of the original language could have occured.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Why do Protestants and Eastern Orthodox(ers?) care what the Pope has to say about anything? Wasn't the reason the whole Protestant Reformation took place (ignoring the nationalist and economic reasons) because the Catholic Church, including the Pope, was corrupt?

My only assumption is that there aren't many other Christian leaders anywhere near the Pope's "influence" and "power" that are Protestant, although I highly doubt it. From what I've heard, John Paul II has been friendly to Protestants - he even forgave the man that made an attempt on his life. When I saw the report about Benedict XVI being voted in, a decent handful of people expressed their dislike for him.

[devonin]

The main arguements for church corruption had to do with the church holding temporal political power, and the church intaking a great deal of money through the selling of indulgences.

It is pretty much all administrative rather than religious.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

The main arguements for church corruption had to do with the church holding temporal political power, and the church intaking a great deal of money through the selling of indulgences.

It is pretty much all administrative rather than religious.

Which means that, if I'm on the right track, the Protestants wanted to have their church for Worship and not much else?

[devonin]

The defining difference between early-era Protestants and the Catholics was the emphasis on a personal relationship with God. IE: You don't need to associate with God through the medium of a Priest, you can do it all on your own.

This was largely in response to the church privitization of confession and penance, and the presence in basically all Catholic sacraments of a priest being required.

It became the case that a priest was both required on the path to, and the largest obstacle on the path to being saved.

There were other administerial changes: Veneration of Saints was reduced, the Mass began to be conducted outside Latin, and so on, but the biggest issue Luther had with Catholicism was the privitization and commercialization of confession, penance and indulgence, which lead to a politically powerful and fabulously wealthy papacy.

[moches]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

What are the "basics"? Where in the Bible does it say "It's okay if you don't follow me in this respect, because you follow me in this other respect"?
http://andy.mikee385.com

By basics, I mean Christian beliefs. All Christian churches follow one Bible. But things like marriage, politics, fasting, confessions. Big emphasis on confessions because some Christians like Protestants believe you only have to confess to God while Catholics believe to be a good Christian, you must also confess to the Pope. Even if you have killed, "Father, I have murdered." So the Pope to Catholics is like God in human form. But Protestants and Orthodoxes don't even have a Pope. So churches are not all different, in my opinion. I believe that all Christian denominations are only disagreeing on minor terms, we all believe you must not lie, steal, murder, be jealous, etc.