"PROTESTANTS AREN'T PROPER CHRISTIANS," SAYS POPE BENEDICT XVI
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 4:29PM NOTRadio This article was written by Simon Caldwell
DailyMail, UK
July 11, 2007.
Pope Benedict XVI declared yesterday that Christian denominations other than his own were not true churches and their holy orders have no value.
Protestant leaders immediately responded by saying the claims were offensive and would hurt efforts to promote ecumenism.
Roman Catholic-Anglican relations are already strained over the Church of England's plans to ordain homosexuals and women as bishops. The claims came in a document, from a Vatican watchdog which was approved by the Pope.
It said the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches "in the proper sense" because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.
As a result, it went on, Protestant churches have "no sacramental priesthood", effectively reaffirming the controversial Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless.
The document claimed the Catholic church was the "one true church of Christ".
Pope Benedict's commitment to the hardline teaching comes days after he reinstated the Mass in Latin, which was sidelined in the 1960s in an attempt to modernise.
The timing of the announcement fuelled speculation that the pontiff - regarded as an arch-conservative before his election in 2005 - is finally beginning to impose his views on the Catholic Church.
The Vatican said it was restating the position set out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000 in a document called Domine Jesus because theologians continued to misunderstand it.
At that time, Anglican leaders from around the world made their anger felt by snubbing an invitation to join Pope John Paul II as he proclaimed St Thomas More the patron saint of politicians.
Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.
He said the pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.
Article source here.
Reader Comments (156)
May I ask my brothers and sisters in our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, to please pray in His Name -the Name above all names for the people and city of Christchurch, New Zealand. Why, in particular -here?
Since September 2010, when it was first struck by a 7.1 earthquake this city and all its surrounding areas, has been physically shaken well over 8000 times up to this present hour. Recently I have heard more than one of it's citizens say "But after Japan's disaster -what have we to complain about?"
With all it’s physical shakings the name CHRISTchurch- seems strangely prophetic in the year 2012
This city is increasingly undergoing not merely a physical shaking but-a spiritual shaking. The first lesson came quickly-the church is NOT a building. The majority of the church buildings have fallen, including the centre-most Ridley Square's (usually referred to as Cathedral Square) Church of England's cathedral & the enormous Roman Catholic cathedral- on the outskirts of the centre. Masonic buildings about the city from it's earliest days have also collapsed… as have spiritualist places. The ecumenicalists think this a wonderful opportunity for us all to ‘come together' as ‘brothers’ in Christ- but is this the Christ of the Scriptures?
Bible believers in our Saviour of today, just as New Zealanders in general, have little or no idea of the truth concerning the Reformation & Rome ….Among the pioneers of this town were both Masonic religious folk, and Bible believers responsible for it's naming and planning even of its 3 main centred squares Ridley, *Latimer & Cramner, and it's museum -which still stands- with a verse from Job engraved over it's stone entrance- 'These are but Edges of His Ways -but How Little is Heard of Him' . The St John's church (building totally collapsed-but the people meet in a school in another part of town-the congregation even before the 7.1 was too large to meet in this place-anyway) in Latimer square are Bible believers in Christ Jesus to this day. Across the city there are church buildings still standing the largest populated being those who might be 'Evangelical' - taught at school or church or both a theological- evolution, New Testament only, social ecumenism. The Anglican Bishop is a lady (more God-ward than the former gentleman bishop) from Canada.
Latimer was the bishop who said to Ridley as they were about to be burnt at the stake during Romanist Queen Mary's reign, something to the effect of 'Be of good cheer Master Ridley, I pray this day that God lights a candle in the hearts of the English people that never burns out.'
Is this all totally unrelated to the above article? Perhaps, perhaps not, I did notice that nothing the Pope or the quoted Protestants in the original article had to say, seemed to have anything to do with our Saviour, the ROCK, the Truth, or His Word, Who in and through alone we may have salvation, righteousness, life everlasting and -be pleasing to our Heavenly Father.
Woops -sorry about that. How do I remove one of these? No idea how I've come up with two .
Jesus Christ, when speaking to the Apostle Peter said "thou art Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my Church".. Not Churches. There is only one Church of Christ and that is the Catholic Church. The 30,000 denominations of protestantism cannot claim it. Sorry. The Pope is right and Peter is the Rock!
Hi Gerald,
With all due respect, there is no mention whatsoever of Peter having been in Rome. If you read a Bible, you will note that Peter was the apostle to the JEWS whereas Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Second, if you read the passage in Greek, you will see the fallacy of your and the Roman Congregation's supposition. The word used for "Peter" is PEBBLE. The word for "upon this ROCK" is a totally different word - do some legwork yourself - I'm not going to feed you. There are Interlinear Bibles online that you can access - This Interlinear Bible is an example.
Next, please research what the Bible says about doctrines of demons: one of which is the prohibition against marriage. What organization prohibits marriage for its "shepherds", Gerald? Next, please explain what scripture says about calling a man FATHER? What did Jesus say about that? Next, what does the Bible say about "traditions of men"? Next, what does the Son of G-D say about prayers made up of vain repetitions"? And while we're on that topic, explain why the Roman organization uses Muslim and Hindu practices? That would be your rosary, Gerald. Next, what does G-D say about sharing His glory? That covers both Miriam (that was her name) and all of those so-called saints within the Roman organization. Next, what does the Bible say about what name by which those who've received the free gift of Salvation is given? It's not Mary and there are no "three wise men", either.
But -- I digress - I've gone too far. Let me back up to the beginning of The Faith. What does the Bible say about Salvation? I know that your organization is extremely weak in reading a Bible, but now, tell us, where in the Bible is the Covenant that the Church is a part of mentioned? Did you know that you haven't one; a covenant? Did you know that the Brit Chadasha (a.k.a. the New Covenant) was made with the Jewish people and that Gentiles, that's you and me, are GRAFTED IN according to Romans? So, what does that mean? That means that the organization that you are exalting is a man-made entity - i.e. a deception.
I would suggest, that considering the current times and the daily fulfillment of Scripture that those of us who are BORN AGAIN see, that you put down the RCC pompoms, REPENT of your SINS, and place your faith and trust in the Jesus of the BIBLE. That's my suggestion. Do yourself a favor and get a clue, man. Get a clue.
Hear the Words of our LORD Jesus The CHRIST, Gerald,
'Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show you what he is like': he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the Rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.'
Luke 6: 47-48 (also Matthew 7:24-25),
Matthew 16:13..v.16-18
'Now when Jesus( meaning -Yehovah's Salvation) came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?".......
And Simon (peeble-stone) replied, "YOU are the Christ-(Messiah Anointed- ONE), the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Peter/Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock-(a towering cliff -namely the revelation Peter had been given of WHO Jesus is) I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
While this is what Paul says about the Rock which he linked with the Rock which Moses struck to give the people of Israel water in the wilderness-1 Corinthians 10:1-6
" I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food,and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted".
Scripture makes it abundantly clear, Gerald, that it is the Words of the Risen Christ our only Saviour -THE ROCK, the unshakeable Shaker in Whom we are to put our faith in, -Who we are to abide in, Whom we are to obey, not the altogether vulnerable Peter (Matthew 16:22-23) let alone a present day Pope.
Amen, Vivienne! The ROCK is not Peter, but the CHRIST - Maran Yeshua HaMoschiach ben HaShem! Tell the truth and shame the Devil.
The Bible does not record that Peter went to Rome true enough though there are some possible illusions to it. But we of course have history. Protestants like to use it when it favors them and discredit it when it doesn't. There are many sources in the early church that clearly indicate that Peter did in fact travel to Rome. Eusebius, Tertullian, Irenaus, the Labyrinth to name a few. What is wrong with this history? Nothing. Protestants have their history of the reformation that they like to pin on their chest. As for Peter being apostle to the Jews it is well known that there were over 50,000 Jews in Rome during the time that Peter was in Jerusalem. Why do you think Tatian would have had to call for their expulsion. Your arguement is an old protestant red hering and invalid.
Next: Matt 16:18 is much better translated "thou art Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my Church.". It is true that petros can be stone but only in Ionic Greek, not Konine Greek which is the greek of the NT. In Konine greek petros is only the masculine form of petra (rock). Lithos is the word for stone in Konine Greek. Further the words were spoken in Aramaic. This is a known fact and in Aramaic the working would have been "thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church". There was no distinction at all between the first and second kepha. Jesus would not have used two different words and it is only in the translation to greek that the two words were neccessary to avoid giving Peter a girls name. Sayin that Peter is the rock in no way denies that Christ is the rock and on another level Catholicism sees this in this passage. But on the literal level the rock here is Peter. No doubt about it. Protestants of course must find other explanations because to not do so would cause them to have to change. Change is hard.
Gerald
"Next, please explain what scripture says about calling a man FATHER" - Well scripture says to honor your father and mother. I supose if I were to take Matt 23:9 as stictly literal as you do I would say that scripture contradicts. Further if I were to take scripture as hyperliteral as you do then I would have to believe that Paul was wrong in 1 Cor 4:14, 15 for calling the Corinthians his children and calling himself "I am your FATHER through the gospel", or calling the father of all Abraham. No Paul was not wrong and Matt 23:9 is not a denial of all human or even spiritual fatherhood as Paul declares himself to be. Rather it is an emphasis in a hyperbolic sense that God the Father is the ultimate source of all fatherhood and that all fatherhood is subservient and dependent upon him. The leaders of the Church at the time were elevating themselves to ultimate fatherhood. But thanks for your concern.
FYI
1 Cor 4: [14]
I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as MY beloved CHILDREN.
[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became YOUR FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
[16] I urge you, then, be imitators of me.
but there is no "but don't call me that" in 1 cor 4. Sorry.
Gerald
"Amen, Vivienne! The ROCK is not Peter, but the CHRIST - Maran Yeshua HaMoschiach ben HaShem! Tell the truth and shame the Devil."
It is not an either or proposition. Christ works through men. He says "he who hears you hears me". He says we are his body. Yes Christ is the rock. I fully acknowledge that. It does not mean that no other man can be spoken of as rock. Take abraham for example.
Is 51.
[1] "Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD;
look to the rock from which you were hewn,
and to the quarry from which you were digged.
[2] Look to Abraham your father
and to Sarah who bore you;
for when he was but one I called him,
and I blessed him and made him many.
" one of which is the prohibition against marriage. "
The Catholic Church does not prohib marriage. All Catholics have the choice of marriage. However in accordance with 1 Cor 7 where paul encourages celibabcy some can choose a life of celibacy and after that can choose to be priests. For Peter asks Jesus in Matt 19 "then it is better not to marry" and Jesus says "to some this has been given for the sake of the kingdom. ". Tell me where is the protestant encouragement of celibacy? Where are the protestant celibates? Rev 14 speaks of the 144,000 who were "not defiled by women" and were celibate. Who are they in protestantism? By the way there are married priests in the CC and priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline. Most eastern rite priests in communion with rome are in fact married.
"Next, what does the Son of G-D say about prayers made up of vain repetitions"? And while we're on that topic, explain why the Roman organization uses Muslim and Hindu practices? "
Is it repetition that bothers you or vain repetition? If it is just repetition then you are going to have to tell God to send the four living Creatures to hell when you get to heaven, for they say "holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts" NIGHT AND DAY. Thats alot of repetition. And of course Jesus should not have healed the blind beggar who kept saying over and over "Jesus son of David have mercy on me". Don't turn on your radio and listen to protestant music. It is full of repetition.
Now if your focus is on the word vain, well there you have a difficulty in that the rosary is a meditation on the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Not just mumbling some words about Mary that are straight out of the Bible in part and the other part is simply asking her to pray for us. We meditate for instance on the annunciation of Jesus to Mary by the angel in Luke 1, Mary's visit to Elizabeth in Luke 2 (straight out of the Bible), Christ's birth, his consecration to the lord, and his being lost in the temple in his twelth year. We also meditate on his passion, recalling his agony in the garden, scouraging at the pilar, crowning of thornes, carrying of the cross and crusifixion. We read scripture and meditate on passages as we speak the prayers of the rosary. Now if this is vain then so be it. I'll leave God and not you as the judge of whether my prayers are vain or not.
God bless
Seems I have a clue. Hope you read my posts above. God bless boys.
Gerald
" I know that your organization is extremely weak in reading a Bible, but now, tell us, where in the Bible is the Covenant that the Church is a part of mentioned? Did you know that you haven't one; a covenant?"
Matt 26
[26] Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Yes in fact we do have a covenant. It is called the Eucharist!!! Protestants just like those in John 6:66 turn and walk away from what Jesus clearly says is his flesh and blood.
John
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
[66]
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
"Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink
How could a Church that is a proper Church deny John 6? It's a major discourse and the many times I went to my wife's Church or any other Protestant Church before she became Catholic I never heard it preached EVER!!!
I am humored that protestants love saying that Catholics aren't Christians but when the Pope makes a statement like this they whine.
Did a little web searching on the petros/petra arguement Chris likes today. It is really odd that I can't find anyone before the reformation that uses this arguement. You would think that the Greek Orthodox in particular would have corrected the Catholic Church on it but they agree that petros means rock. I don't see any evidence that this arguement was used before the reformation.
Gerald, if you have finished replying to Luci's comments, may we please pick up the thread & go back to your original post, and your further comments upon that particular verse.
-Quoting Gerald i.e.-Post 3
' "......thou art Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my Church"
.. Not Churches. There is only one Church of Christ and that is the Catholic Church. The 30,000 denominations of protestantism cannot claim it. Sorry. The Pope is right and Peter is the Rock! " ?
&
Quoting Gerald's i.e.-Post 8
"Next: Matt 16:18 is much better translated "thou art Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my Church.". It is true that petros can be stone but only in Ionic Greek, not Konine Greek which is the greek of the NT. In Konine greek petros is only the masculine form of petra (rock). Lithos is the word for stone in Konine Greek. Further the words were spoken in Aramaic. This is a known fact and in Aramaic the working would have been "thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church"
Thank you, Gerald for this information.
I looked up the 'Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text. George M. Lamsa's Translations From the Aramaic of the Peshitta.' Quote P.970 Matthew 16 v. 18
"I tell you also that you are that stone and upon this stone I will build My church; ……”
I think it was Eusebius, whom you mention, who reports that Matthew first wrote the book in Hebrew. I understand that in recent years Israelis researching 1st century AD Israel (the New Testament refers to the country of the Christ’s day as ‘Israel’ never ‘Palestine’) have confirmed this and there are still some 30 copies in a Hebrew version of Mathew but only one I know of translated into English. Here is that translation.
‘Hebrew Gospel of Matthew’ George Howard, P.81 Matthew 16 v. 18
“I say to you: you are a stone and I will build upon you My house of prayer.”
It is certainly understandable that something which comes to us via 3 other languages might be misleading regards ‘stones’ and ‘rocks’ but we have here one most important statement made by the Lord Jesus which all the translations agree –namely WHO is going to do, has done, and is doing, the building. ( Daniel 2:34)
Surely that is the main issue we need to know. Because immediately we know that this is a building not made by human hands always on earth to some extent an invisible building but on earth it has to reflect ( ‘in living stones’--(lithos) 1Peter 2:5) it’s BUILDER.
What was the character of the LORD Jesus Christ?
1. He never lied! He was never deceitful-He is the TRUTH His building will be made up of ‘living stones with nothing deceitful about them’ –stones that do not lie as -Rev. 22:15 confirms.
2. He chose to reveal His heart He has ‘a gentle and lowly heart’! Matt 11: 29 His building will be made up of ‘living stones that are humble and gentle ’ –that are not proud –& nothing vicious no bullies-no murderers!
Surely that is the main issue we need to know. Because immediately we know that this is a building not made by human hands always on earth to some extent an invisible building but on earth it has to reflect ( ‘in living stones’--(lithos) 1Peter 2:5) it’s BUILDER.
What was the character of the LORD Jesus Christ?
1. He never lied! He was never deceitful-He is the TRUTH His building will be made up of ‘living stones with nothing deceitful about them’ –stones that do not lie as -Rev. 22:15 confirms.
2. He chose to reveal His heart He has ‘a gentle and lowly heart’! Matt 11: 29 His building will be made up of ‘living stones that are humble and gentle ’ –that are not proud –& nothing vicious no bullies-no murderers!
Well that’s just a bit of this building our Savior is making you will see there is much more –Paul spoke about it as having the fruit of the Spirit-namely ‘is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; (all the characteristics of our Good Shepherd) against such things there is no law’.
You know Gerald once you have met and heard the Voice of this Messiah speaking His word into your heart- you cannot be persuaded to follow any ‘stranger’ be they Leaders of the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or whatever but not believers of the One LORD God –Messiah Jesus–Creator of heaven and earth and everything in it- in six days !
What is the ‘clue’ you think you have got, Gerald?
By the way, I am no-'boy' but an English 67 year old maid. Our Lord Jesus Christ in His extra-ordinary love-when I was 7, introduced Himself to me, through His spoken Words in Rev 3:20...After recognizing some days later what sin was and how He has dealt with it, there was to come a day when I heard Him ask me (again through His Word-John 15:7) 'What would you ask of Me?' and I asked Him knowing He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, -to be lead to know the Truth, about the God of the Scriptures, about people, history and circumstances..
Anybody who believes the petros/petra arguement should read the following.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/08/petros-vs-petra-non-argument.html
Kinda puts it to bed.
Dear Gerald,
Your argument is flawed for many reasons, not the least of which is that your website argues that the Greek Orthodox Church never interpreted Matthew 16:18 in the way it was understood by the Reformers. Yet the Reformers themselves made mention of the Greek Orthodox archbishop, Theophylact of Orid (1055-1107) who specifically interpreted the words "upon this rock I will build my church" to mean: "The confession which thou hast made, shall be the foundation of the believers." It had nothing to do with Peter as the foundation, but rather, the revelation that Jesus is the Christ.