"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)
Chris,
I am not arguing the point of what the rock is and in Catholicism the statement by the Bishop is completely consistent with Catholic teaching which does not have one interpretation for the rock. The article simply points out that the argument that petros means stone is completely foolish. The quote you posted does nothing to show otherwise. All it shows is that there was a disgreement over the papacy by the GO. We know that. There is nothing in that statement that says that the Bishop thought that Petros means stone. Now if you can come up with a quote before the reformation of someone who spoke greek making the arguement that Protestants make regarding petros and stone then you will prove the article is flawed. I think you are either having trouble grasping the article I posted or are simply ignoring it.
Chris, a bit of clarification. The point of the Article IS NOT that the GO did not argue the way that the protestants did in a lot of ways! In fact that is part of the point. They did make some of the arguments that Protestants did. But the one glaring omission is that they did not use the petros = stone argument! Do you get it. The one argument that depended on their own language that they could have made they did not!!!! We can address all the arguments the GO used but this fact is undeniable.
Chris,
Listened to your show online. I will provide some comments over the next few days. I find it funny that you did not even bother to address the petros/petra arguement that the article makes. You went on and on about the aramaic. We don't even need that argument to deal with what the article says about petra/petros. AGAIN WHY DIDN'T the GREEKS make the point that protestants make about this supposed word play. Why didn't the reformers make it? Why did some johnny come lately protestant of the 20th century have to come up with the argument. Because it is an invalid arguement.
The fact is with the greek that greek is a gendered language. Therefore there are masculine and feminine words that have the EXACT SAME MEANING. The writers calling Peter Petra would have been to give him a woman's name like Linda or Virginia. Regardless of whether the original language was in Aaramic (which is non-gendered) or Greek the writers would not have done this. Especially since they had a perfectly good word, petros in Konine Greek that meant Rock. Again you can't show me one greek scholar before the 20th century who said that petros meant stone. If you can show me it. Again the reformers NEVER made this argument! Why?
by the way I would be glad to get in to a discussion on salvation and faith alone on a thread where it is appropriate. Suffice it to say that the writers of the new testament used the word faith and only one chose to add the word alone after it (that won't help you much, it's in James). That is of course unless you believe in Luther's corruption of Romans 3. Anyway start up an article on salvation and works and I will gladly give you a good run for your money in debate of the matter.
Meant to say that the NT writers used the word faith over 300 times and only once did they add the word alone to it.
Gerald, obviously the GO did not use the petros/petra argument for the exact same reason that the Catholic church refused to acknowledge it. Because it would undermine their false doctrine of their own papacy. The following Scripture is the only thing I can find in the Bible regarding the papacy and Rome.
Revelation 17-18
"Gerald, obviously the GO did not use the petros/petra argument for the exact same reason that the Catholic church refused to acknowledge it. Because it would undermine their false doctrine of their own papacy.".
Ummm. The GO don't have a papacy and they don't use Matt 16:18 to defend their patriarch. Your comment is way off the mark. You also missed the point of the article that the reformers never used the petra/petros arguement either. It was not used until the 20th century from what I can find. Good job reading in to Revelations what you want it to say based on prejudice. The Vatican is not on the seven hills. Sorry. Rome is but the Vatican is accross the Tiber. Lot's of other reasons why this passage doesn't fit. By the way did you know that Protestants had inquisitions too. .
Chris,
Here is a good question:
"Which makes more sense: 1) these Greek-speaking faithful Christians (no Roman bias there) didn't grasp their own Greek language? Or 2) the Protestant-era argument (made primarily by native English speakers equipped with modern lexicons and internet articles) asserting that the "petra/petros distinction precludes the Petrine interpretation is specious."
You can look at the writings of John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and others who certainly knew Greek better than any modern day protestant or protestant commentary. NONE of them used the petra petros arguement or said anything like petros meant stone or little stone or pebble. Sorry. It's just not out there. No arguement of silence here either. Arguements of sillence are arguemnts where something would have been unlikely to be spoken and wasn't. In this case it would be like someone creating a list of TV shows from the 60's and 70's and leaving out Happy Days, the Lone Ranger, and Batman. One would have to ask why did they leave those out.
Gerald, Jeff, Chris, Could we please get back to the main issue. That is- WHO the BUILDER IS!
WHO we are to put our faith In Namely The ROCK , The Foundational ROCK -JESUS-Saviour, THE CHRIST of the Scriptures- none other !
Just as Peter -'filled with the Holy Spirit'- said (Acts 4:8 & 10-12)
"let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead - ......This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. And there is SALVATION in no one else, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given among men by which we must be SAVED."
"..for there is SALVATION in no one else for there is NO other NAME under heaven given among men by which we must be SAVED."
It should also be noted that it is not just that the Greek Fathers were silent on the matter of Matt 16:18. Several of them, Basil, John Chysostom, Eusibius to name a few clearly identify Peter as the rock spoken of in Matt 16:18. Not some little stone or pebble. Now Protestants would have you believe that they didn't know there greek and that modern day protestants know it better. This is silly.
• St. Basil the Great:…. "The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church." (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. "The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock ..." (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).
• St. John Chrysostom: "...and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples ..." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. "Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. "Peter, ... that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
Vivienne, I agree completely that Jesus is THEE rock. But that does not in any way exclude anyone else from being the rock or as i have shown Jesus himself contradictions your theory that no one else can be called rock. That is unless you are so bent on Jesus being the only one who can be called rock in scripture and so you go through all kinds of wild claims about petros being little stone and pershitte Bibles etc. etc. Then you also have problems with passages like Is 51 where it says "look to the rock from which you were hewn...look to Abraham and to Sarah". Interesting that there are many similarities between Peter and Abraham. So Jesus is the rock, I say AMEN!! but your either or thinking was never a part of the thinking of the early church fathers. They had no problem calling jesus the rock, Peter's faith in Jesus the rock and Peter himself the rock. They did not limit scripture in the way that you and Chris and all Protestants try to do. It is clear that all the apostles are a part of the foundation of the Church and that very same foundation is Christ. Christ works through his disciples/apostles. Peter is not the rock apart from Christ being the rock. Not at all. His rockiness totally depends on Christ the rock!!! It's not either or.
Let's add this post here from the audio on the 17th as well. Since it fits with the article that I posted that makes the point that neither the greek fathers nor the reformers used the petra/petros arguement that protestants today so love.
It should also be noted that it is not just that the Greek Fathers were silent on the matter of Matt 16:18. Several of them, Basil, John Chysostom, Eusibius to name a few clearly identify Peter as the rock spoken of in Matt 16:18. Not some little stone or pebble. Now Protestants would have you believe that they didn't know there greek and that modern day protestants know it better. This is silly.
• St. Basil the Great:…. "The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church." (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. "The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock ..." (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).
• St. John Chrysostom: "...and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples ..." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. "Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. "Peter, ... that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
Gerald,
- it is because I believe JESUS via the woman (Genesis 3:15- Luke 2:30-35) via Abraham (Gen. 22: 17-18), via Isaac (Gen. 26: 4), via Jacob (Gen. 28: 4), via Judah (Gen. 49: 10), via David (2Sam. 7:12), IS the long promised blessing for all peoples, nations and families and HE Is that promised Seed the-MESSIAH/the Christ of the Scriptures that –I look to HIM alone.
It is this- through this- JESUS CHRIST alone I receive, the salvation of my soul from sin, forgiveness, and cleansing, and the wonder of life eternal and this JESUS CHRIST of the Scriptures to Whom I look to obey His words in His book, for in HIM alone do all the promises of YeHOVAH His FATHER have their ‘Yes’ and ‘AMEN’ (2 Corin. 1:20).
Math 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
The context of these verses have to do with 3 religous titles. This has nothing to do with earthly relationships.
The ecumenical movement is based on these 3 titles.
1. Father- Catholic Priest
2. Masters- Freemasonry
3. Rabbi- Jewish
So Jason, what do you think about Paul calling himself Father in 1 Cor 4:14-16.
[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.
Vivienne,
"I look to HIM alone".
So in the passage about you wouldn't look to Paul and imitate him? You don't accept any Church leadership?
Heb.13
1. [17] Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
I agree that all salvation comes from Christ. But what your view lacks is an understanding of how Christ brings that about. He does it through his Church which encompases the scriptures but so much more
Rom.10
1. [15] And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!"
Hey Gerald,
I believe the passage is stated as this
14I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
16Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Paul is addressing his converts that he led to Jesus Christ through the gospel. He begat them through the gospel (spirtual birth = new birth). Christ did the work, Paul delivered the message faithfully. A catholic priest brings people to the Roman Catholic church(baptism,sacraments,confessional etc) thats not the same gospel. A catholic priest doesnt lead people to Christ alone!
The gospel is:
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
Also on a different note we are called to be followers not imitators. We have enough professing imitators. Satan is a good imitator as well. He appears as an Angel of light.
Thank you for your comments Gerald
Jason
Chris, by the way I will be at the conference in April in Minneapolis. Already have my ticket! Maybe I'll introduce myself if you are still on speaking terms with me by then. Maybe we can mix it up a bit there.
Gerald,
Your Pope prays to the Queen of Heaven!!
Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
Jer 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.
Your Building are full of Idol that people kiss and pray too.
1Co_10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
Your priest rape children and your Bishops cover it up.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
How can you be so proud of your denomination?
Rev_18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
I can only conclude that this scripture is for you.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Are you a Jesuit assigned to agitate Chris? Or are you genuinely concerned for Chris's salvation?
I think your a Jesuit and your last post is red flag!!!
I'll be praying for your salvation.
May the Lord Jesus Christ give you a heart of flesh. Amen
Eze_36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
No man upon the earth has the right to claim the powers that popery has. All men upon the earth are sinners and will face judgement for their time here. The Bible is very clear that All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. All our righteousness is as water that is poured out upon the ground and cannot be gathered up again. This includes the Popes. All means all, and the popes being men will die and be buried in the ground just like everybody else and God will judge them just like everybody else. To stand in the place of God, himself claiming to be God here upon the earth is blasphemy. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a pit.
Good Soldier,
Ya right, Mary who bore Jesus is the Queen of Heaven of Jerimiah. Mary who said I am the handmaid of the Lord be it done unto me according to the word. That's the Queen of Heaven of Jerimiah. We pray the words out the the scripture that the angel gabriel said to mary and then ask her to pray for us. You got a problem with the words Gabriel said to her? Asking her to pray for us acknowledges that God is the one that we accomplish the good that we seek. Your post is just anti-catholic prejudice without engaging your mind. God bless though.
Gerald
Wallace, Popes go to confession like everyone else. JPII was said to go daily and Benedict XVI at least weekly. Popes sin, we do not believe otherwise. God does not sin. Therefore Popes are not gods. This is silly. Vicar of Christ does not mean God on earth.
Here are the protestants of the Old Testament who would not follow Moses.
Num.16
[1] Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi'ram the sons of Eli'ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben,
[2] took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men;
[3] and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"
[4] When Moses heard it, he fell on his face;
[5] and he said to Korah and all his company, "In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to him; him whom he will choose he will cause to come near to him.
20] And the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron,
[21] "Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment."
[22] And they fell on their faces, and said, "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be angry with all the congregation?"
[23] And the LORD said to Moses,
[24] "Say to the congregation, Get away from about the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abi'ram."
[25] Then Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abi'ram; and the elders of Israel followed him.
[26] And he said to the congregation, "Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins."
[27] So they got away from about the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abi'ram; and Dathan and Abi'ram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with their wives, their sons, and their little ones.
[28] And Moses said, "Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord.
[29] If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me.
[30] But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."
[31] And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder;
[32] and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods.
[33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.
[34] And all Israel that were round about them fled at their cry; for they said, "Lest the earth swallow us up!"
[35] And fire came forth from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense.
No sense wasting time to argue with rabid Catholics who can't see and hear. Jesus didn't. He said "don't cast your pearls before swine". The clergy of Jesus' day thought they were God's chosen leaders. They weren't. They will treat Christ's body as they did The Head.
One time Jesus 'rejoiced greatly in the Spirit and thanked God that the mysteries of God were hidden from those thinking themselves wise and ONLY revealed to babes.' Matthew 12
You must become as a child to enter into the Kingdom of God. Once a person allows the Pope to have equal authority to the Bible then the Bible will always be put in a place to affirm the leader, in this case, the Pope.
The Pope is antichrist. He has put himself in the place of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was sent to be the Vicar of Christ, not the Pope.
See a former Domenican Priest who converted to Protestantism and his testimony here: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/