"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)
Vivienne,
Far be it from me to speak for Gerald but it probably was not responded to because we are vastly outnumbered here and it is almost impossible to address every issue that gets thrown against the wall. That said, Gerald is mostly correct about Luther. He tried to add "alone" to Romans 3:28. When asked about it, he replied, ""You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text" (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
It is an important point because the ego he displays is the intellectual foundation of the entire deformation. He does not like the pope, so he made himself a "pope", just as Chris has, Bob has, Good Soldier has, and the pastors of tens of thousands of Protestant denominations have. It is taking the faith as practiced for 1500 years and saying, "I do not like it, thus it is changed." Luther went even farther and tried to throw Revelation and James out of the Bible, calling the latter an "Epistle of Straw." Like it or not, that is YOUR theological forefather. Although you are correct in saying that the words of Luther will not save you, his words are part of the foundation of your faith. There is no escaping it. Again, we are talking about a man who both added AND removed (or at least attempted) from scripture. The ironic part is that Catholics, who wrote, canonized, and preserved the NT are the ones accused of being disrespectful to scripture.
TQ - Your response is exactly the reason I see no need to waste time refuting your apostate nonsense. Have a good day.
Bob stated: "Your response is exactly the reason I see no need to waste time refuting your apostate nonsense. Have a good day."
Translation of Bob's statement: "I cannot refute the bible verses cited nor the conduct of Chris, my fellow posters, or myself, so I am going to declare myself the winner, pick up my ball, and go home like a child (at least until this topic is forgotten and I can come back and throw another baseless smear against the wall)."
The funny things is that my "translation" is closer to what Bob said than anything Chris says whenever he leads with, "In other words..."
Good luck to you and God Bless.
And I am STILL waiting for even a single verse from anyone that says scripture alone is the revelation of God's Word for salvation...
As I have said many times, sola scriptura is a foundation built upon sand.
Let's end with Ignatius of Antioch, who learned the faith from the apostle John:
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
Can. 210 All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.
Can. 218 Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church.
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
These and other laws make it the duty of every Catholic to defend the Pope and Obey the Bishops no matter what their conscience tells them to do. This is why the hierarchy in Ireland was able to keep the abuse system running without the civil authority's intervening. The Government of Ireland is packed full of the Knights of Columbanus (Knights of Beelzebub) that have colluded with the Bishops to cover up child abuse in this country since the State was founded as a Catholic Republic in 1936. This is not just my opinion but the conclusion of The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse what was set up in 1999 after decades of campaigning by victims the truth finally got out.
I have first had experience of the cover ups due to the fact that my 3rd grade teacher was a compulsive pedophile, scout leader and prominent member of the Knights of Columbanus. I was never abused by this teacher but I can tell you that half of my class were raped by him and that the rumors about his activity were common knowledge in the town. In the end he was put in prison but many of those he raped committed suicide when the whole thing became public. And many of the 100+ cases that were brought against him were dropped because people were taken up the mountains at gun point and their family's held captive, all covered up of course. I only know this because I know the victims personally.
Maybe your just ignorant of the fact Tarls, so I would ask you to read the findings of the Ryan Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/
This is not just an isolated incident and the current Pope has also been connected to the cover up of child raping in Germany.
Another interesting fact about your current Pope is that he was a Nazi Youth!!
I know that I'm deserting my previous decision to refuse coming back to this message board, but TarlsQtr's most recent post (as well as everyone else's) need to be dealt with.
TarlQtr, I agree that the behavior on this message board has been despicable and less than becoming of what is demanded of Christians. I cannot speak for the others since I have no idea where they're coming from and, quite frankly, I don't think I want to know (for some reason the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" was lost on these people). My point in my post was to bring to EVERYONE'S attention (not just yours) that you're ALL spewing bull in one way or another. You're all being disparaging to one another and it was getting on my nerves. I know this sounds pejorative, but after reviewing the posts on this "discussion" board, I stand by it concerning BOTH sides (and what did you expect, exactly, when you decided to engage in a dialogue that neither of you ever intended to be one?).
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out neither side ever took the time to actually UNDERSTAND what the other was saying before "debating" (again, this applies to both sides), which is why I suggested looking into James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (smart guy, but his personality takes some getting used to) who actually understands what the Doctrines and Catechisms of the RCC say and yet still argues against them (not just in writing, but in actual, public debates) from a Reformed perspective. All you guys have been doing to one another is demonizing (the Anti-Catholic more than the Pro-Catholic, I'll admit outright) and attacking the most ridiculous caricatures I've seen in a long while.
All I can suggest to ALL of you who have participated in this "debate" is to educate yourselves and be fair. I mean, come on, is that so much to ask? You guys are ALL so friggin' dogmatic that reading through these pages feels like being pounded repeatedly by a sledgehammer. All I can say to the Anti-Catholics is to read Catholic books as well as other history books; to the Pro-Catholics all I can say is to read something other than "Rome Sweet Home" or any Pro-Catholic/Anti-Protestant book for that matter, and try to implement actual historicity and not just anachronistic fantasy (same goes for the Anti-Catholics, as well). Do these things and MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND, because if there is anything that was revealed in this exchange it is that you are all very, VERY ignorant of what you think you know.
I understand that I sound harsh, but sometimes you need to use a jackhammer to bust the boulders.
In Christ,
Anon
Good Idol Worshipper stated: "These and other laws make it the duty of every Catholic to defend the Pope and Obey the Bishops no matter what their conscience tells them to do."
Thanks for playing, please try again. That clearly refers to matters of "doctrine", not in defense of pedophilia which obviously against Church doctrine. Again, it is obvious what they are talking about. You, sir, are a liar.
GoodIdol Worshipper stated: "This is not just an isolated incident and the current Pope has also been connected to the cover up of child raping in Germany. "
Sure he is "connected" by collective salvation believers like you because he is a Catholic.
GoodIdolWorshipper stated: "Another interesting fact about your current Pope is that he was a Nazi Youth!!"
Why is that interesting? He was a "youth" in Nazi Germany a country that required ALL youth to be members of the "HITLER Youth" (you could not even get that right) by law. So, do you condemn all German children of the 1930's who were all FORCED into this program or just Roman Catholics who become Pope? You do realize that Germany is a Protestant and not a Catholic country, correct? To use Chris's line, in other words, the Pope was forced into it by a bunch of Lutherans, right? Let's go farther with this guilt by association premise you love so much. You realize that a bunch of Lutherans and other Protestant denominations were exterminating Jews (and Polish Catholics) during the holocaust, right? You do realize that Jews had a much higher survival rate in Catholic countries than Protestant ones, right? By your "logic", all that adhere to a Protestant (any denomination that is not Catholic or orthodox) faith should leave it or be "associated" with the mass murder of the 1940's, right? You do realize that the other denominations have AT LEAST as much of a problem regarding such sex scandals according to John Jay Law School, right? You do realize that they cannot give COMPLETE data because so many PROTESTANT denominations STILL keep this stuff secret (like the SBC), correct? You do realize that the SBC and others STILL do not have a reporting system for reporting such occurences, correct? You do realize that the problem is so bad that there are websites like stopbaptistpredators.org, right? Does your view of collective guilt go as far as condemning all southern baptists? Want to talk about abuse in the Amish protestant communities? Do we need to go on?
You are a hypocrite because your outrage is selective.
Stephen called the Jews who refused to hear the truth "stiff necked". Jesus called the false leaders lots of names like "snakes and hypocrites". Paul wished his enemies would "mutilate themselves". And read what Jude said about the false teachers. I love the sheep, not the false shepherds and false teachers and false prophets. They need to be warned of their true condition and true standing before God.
Anon,
Thanks for the posts. Although I find them quite condescending (they drip with the same types of assumptions that your viewpoints are 100% right as you criticize), there is some truth.
A couple of points. Look at the language used by me and compare it against the language used against me. To even come close to implying that the level of egregiousness is even near equal is, well, absurd. Especially look at my earliest posts before I was bombarded with days of "cult", "heretic", "apostate", etc, not to mention the devil sending demons to Good Soldier's church.
Second, you are VERY correct about the caricatures. However, they have no excuse. The RCC supplies the catechism and papal encyclicals online, for everyone to view for free in complete transparency. If they want to see what Catholicism "teaches", there is no need for them to erect a definition or quote an obscure 19th century bishop from New York. They can get it right from the source.
I have no such luxury. There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, each likely with a different definition of sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. Yours is probably different from Chris's, which is different than Dr. White's. I have no choice, to some degree, to do anything other than provide a caricature because of that inherent weakness (no unity of beliefs) of Protestantism. Not only that, I have to deal with people like "Good Soldier" who simply REFUSES to tell me what church he attends so that I can debate a real belief instead of a caricature.
BTW, I respect Dr. White very much. Although I disagree a lot (which should not surprise you), I do see a true love of Christ in him which I do not find here.
God Bless,
TQ
Anon,
Before you get TOO full of yourself:
"There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic."
-G.K. Chesterton
I understand that, Bob, but this is not the way to go about it. The sense of urgency does not call for such insults. All I can say is that it's better to understand each other first and be courteous when discussing these things.
TarlsQtr, please don't quote G.K Chesterton (my favorite author, by the way) to me thinking that it somehow gives you some superlative depth of comprehension of the situation at hand. I was simply trying to defend you guys; and to say that I'm full of myself is simply a cop-out and doesn't even address the merits of my comments. ALL of you on this message board seem to have more in common with the species of macaw than rational man. You all can either grow up and behave like mature, rational, INFORMED adults, or you all can continue to parrot away...
Anon,
I do agree with the spirit of your long post up above. That is in fact why I am out here. I won't say that I haven't put out a jab or two when I was a bit annoyed with Chris or one of the posters. I have listened thoughtfully to every one of Chris's audios and read every one of the posts of those whom have posted against Catholicism. I am not going to claim moral superiority but I do know what the CC teaches and there isn't much resemblance of it in the posts of non-catholics here. I do in principle applaud your post above.
I need to add some things to my previous post since the page updated with a few new comments (which changed the context of the situation) before I applied the comment (particularly TarlsQtr).
TrlsQtr, I completely agree with your observation that the Anti-Catholic rhetoric of some people is very caustic on this message board and I don't approve of it. I have a Roman Catholic friend and we discuss Catholicism and Protestantism from time to time. Of course, we disagree on certain issues, just as in the Roman Catholic Church there ARE disagreements within it: there are Ultratraditionalists, Traditionalists, Liberals, Charismatic/Evangelical, Cultural, and Popular Folk Catholics; there are Thomists, Molinists, and Augustinians; there are even those who don't think that the current pope is a legitimate successor.
You will say that even though there are differences of opinion within the RCC regarding certain doctrines that your are still unified (and that's true, in a sense). Well, that's the way it is in Protestant circles, too (I want to qualify here that not everyone who calls themselves a Protestant actually is, just as it is the same way for Catholics). It can be phrased like this: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity." Even though we may not agree on every thing, we do agree on the essentials (i.e. "the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things", Jesus). I know what you're going to say next: "Well, how do we know what the essentials and non-essentials are?" Well, that's where a sound hermeneutic of interpretation comes into play.
As regards Five Solas, there is more than enough information available via the internet or books that addresses them and their legitimacy; and there is more substance regarding them and the Protestant Reformation than is being given. As for Sola Scriptura, it actually just makes sense to me. Whoever said that something needed to be explicitly stated in the Scriptures when the implicit principle is just as viable (Chris mentioned some of them, if I remember correctly)? Not to mention that "Occam's Razor" does a pretty good job of clearing up the clutter. I'm not going to get into that discussion here, but I am grateful that the everyone's spirits have calmed down.
I want to apologize for sounding condescending and rude to you guys. I was simply trying to "shout" through a cacophony of sound.
In Christ,
Anon
Anon,
You call me irrational, but does a rational man continue to post on a board filled with macaws? I think not, yet you do. And I do NOT say that because I want you to stop posting. On the contrary.
Truly, I have no problem with the thrust of your message. In fact, as I stated earlier, I agree with most of it. What I do take issue with is the heir of superiority that you take, as if you are above it all and then go on to call everyone "macaws" and "parrots", which is not exactly the language of "mature" and "rational" adults. I also take umbrage when you imply that the issues you have outlined are even close to being equally violated by each "side" of the debate. My final example is simple. You came here and proudly proclaimed that EVERYONE IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING as if you were Moses stepping down from Mt. Sinai, yet provided not one example. Seriously, that is gall and chutzpah.
As far as quoting Chesterton (mine too, along with CS Lewis), in contrast to claiming "superlative depth of comprehension of the situation at hand" my quote of him says the complete opposite. I am completely aware of my limitations and prostrate myself to the likes of a genius like him. That is why I quoted him.
Anon,
I just saw your most recent post and I appreciate it. I will get to it soon as I do have some work to do! :-)
I appreciate the charitable spirit, TarlsQtr, but I think I'm done with this.
In Christ,
Anon
Tarls,
My local New Testament Church is Baptist, as for it's location it is in Ireland and part of the Irish Baptist Association and has no connection to Baptist Churches in the US. If I find that child raping has been covered up in my Church then I will leave my Church and will do all I can to bring those responsible to justice. Now you can go ahead and attack the doctrines of the Baptist Association of Ireland all you want if it makes you feel powerful but the fact remains that they preach the true and Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Roman Cult do not. I call the Roman Catholic Church a cult because it is my firm conviction that it is not part of the Body of Christ and not as such then a Church in the same way that the Mormons and Jehovah Witness are cults. As for the Southern Baptists, if the members don't get those responsible for cover ups of child raping fired and put in jail then I do think that they are partly responsible by there inaction. I imagine that some good Baptists are trying to do just that and more have probably left the Southern Baptist Convention because of the cover up.
The letter that shows Vatican DID tell Irish bishops to cover up child abuse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348298/Vatican-told-Irish-Catholic-bishops-cover-child-abuse-says-letter.html
A 1997 letter from the Vatican telling Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police has been uncovered.
The Vatican has long denied any involvement in cover-ups and the letter, obtained by Irish broadcasters RTE, has the potential to fuel more lawsuits worldwide.
The letter documents the Vatican's rejection of an Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify paedophile priests.
The letter's message undermines persistent Vatican claims that the church never instructed bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police.
It instead emphasizes the church's right to handle all child-abuse allegations and determine punishments in-house rather than hand that power to civil authorities.
Catholic officials in Ireland had previously refused to release he letter, which RTE said it had received from an Irish bishop.
Child-abuse activists in Ireland said the 1997 letter should demonstrate, once and for all, that the protection of paedophile priests from criminal investigation was not only sanctioned by Vatican leaders but ordered by them.
A key argument employed by the Vatican in defending dozens of lawsuits over clerical sex abuse in the United States is that it had no role in ordering local church authorities to suppress evidence of crimes.
'The letter is of huge international significance, because it shows that the Vatican's intention is to prevent reporting of abuse to criminal authorities,' said Colm O'Gorman, director of the Irish chapter of human rights watchdog Amnesty International.
'And if that instruction applied here, it applied everywhere.
To this day, the Vatican has yet to endorse any of the Irish church's three major policy documents since 1996 on reporting suspected child abuse to civil authorities.
In his 2010 pastoral letter to the Irish people condemning paedophiles in the ranks, Pope Benedict XVI faulted Ireland's bishops for failing to follow canon law and offered no explicit endorsement of Irish child-protection efforts by the Irish church or state.
O'Gorman - who was raped repeatedly by an Irish priest when he was an altar boy and was among the first victims to speak out in the mid-1990s - said evidence is mounting that some Irish bishops continued to follow the 1997
Vatican instructions and withheld reports of crimes against children as recently as 2008.
A third major state-ordered investigation into Catholic abuse cover-ups, concerning the southwest Irish diocese of Cloyne, is expected to be published within the next few months.
Two state-commissioned reports published in 2009 - into the Dublin Archdiocese and workhouse-style Catholic institutions for children - unveiled decades of cover-ups of abuse involving tens of thousands of children since the 1930s.
Irish church leaders didn't begin telling police about suspected paedophile priests until the mid-1990s.
In January 1996, Irish bishops published a groundbreaking policy document spelling out their new-found determination to report all suspected abuse cases to police.
But in the January 1997 letter, the Vatican's diplomat in Ireland at the time, Archbishop Luciano Storero, told the bishops that a senior church panel in Rome, the Congregation for the Clergy, had decided that the Irish church's year-old policy of 'mandatory' reporting of abuse claims conflicted with canon law.
Would You Believe? The letter was uncovered by Irish broadcasters RTE
Storero emphasized in the letter that the Irish church's policy was not recognized by the Vatican and was 'merely a study document'.
He said canon law - which required abuse allegations to be handled within the church - 'must be meticulously followed'.
Without elaborating, Storero, who died in 2000, wrote that mandatory reporting of child-abuse claims to police 'gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature.'
He warned that bishops who followed the Irish child-protection policy and reported a priest's suspected crimes to police ran the risk of having their in-house punishments of the priest overturned by the Congregation for the
Clergy.
The letter, originally obtained by RTE religious affairs program Would You Believe?, said the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome was pursuing 'a global study' of sexual-abuse policies and would establish worldwide child-protection policies 'at the appropriate time'.
The Vatican's child-protection policies today remain in legal limbo.
It currently advises bishops worldwide to report crimes to police only in a legally non-binding lay guide, but it does not mention this in the official legal document provided by another powerful church body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which continues to stress the secrecy of canon law.
The central message of Storero's letter was reported second-hand by two priests as part of Ireland's mammoth investigation into the 1975-2004 cover-up of hundreds of child-abuse cases in the Dublin Archdiocese.
The letter itself, marked 'strictly confidential,' has never been published before.
Back a while ago on this LONG thread I posted a question. I asked about why for over 1900 years nobody, not even the Greeks said that Petros meant little stone or used the argument that there was a play on words in Matt 16. You would think the Greek Orthodox, who certainly had a gripe against the Papacy would have used this argument if Petros meant little stone. There are plenty of writings over the years that say that Peter/Petros meant rock.
Funny thing I read the other night about how the reason that Matthew was ascribed to Matthew was because of the writings of some of the post apostolic Christians such as Eusebius, Papais, Irenaus, etc. who said that Matthew wrote it. I.e. it was carried down throughout Christianity that Matthew wrote it, and the same is true for the other Gospels. The Gospels don't all say who wrote them. The funny thing about this is that one of Chris's "smoking gun" arguments against Peter being the rock in Matt 16:18 is that it made no sense that the gospels ever were written in Aramaic. They all originally were written in Greek and so the Catholic claim that Peter's name was spoken Kepha/Aramaic (of course they ignore John 1:42 where he is called Cephas) is invalid.
The funny thing is that the very passages in these early writers that attribute the first Gospel to Matthew also say that in fact Matthew wrote that first Gospel in Aramaic! It was later translated in to Greek probably in the 60's.
I would still like someone to engage their mind and ask why none of the over 1900 years of those who disliked the Catholic Church, including the reformers, Orthodox, and MANY MANY greek speaking Christians NEVER used the petros = little stone play on words argument and that somehow mondern day protestants know better than them? Anyone? Anyone?
Vivienne,
Luther in fact translated Romans 3:28 adding the word alone after the word faith. This translation was considered to be a good translation by the reformers and I do believe that even initial king james and other versions allowed this corruption in their bibles. This isn't about Martin Luther per se. It is about a Bible translation. But my question was not about Luther's corruption but why the doctrine of sola fide, i.e. salvation by faith alone is a doctrine on which the Church stands or falls (I willl remind you that Chris today in his program spoke of Sola Scriptura as one of the doctrines on which the Church "stands or falls") if in 300 tries of writing the word faith in the NT the gospel writers and letter writers only ONCE figured they should put the word alone after it. So while your question about Luther is appreciated it is not my point and only evidence for my point.
Anon,
With all due respect and gratitude for your trying to be reasonable in this discussion and fair, something severely lacking here, I want to address this a bit:
"As for Sola Scriptura, it actually just makes sense to me. Whoever said that something needed to be explicitly stated in the Scriptures when the implicit principle is just as viable (Chris mentioned some of them, if I remember correctly)? "
The problem with this is that if a core doctrine that says that sola scriptura is the truth, something on which the Church stands or falls, is the truth, yet it is not stated in scripture or is not clear in scripture, then the core doctrine violates the very principle that it proposes. That is a big problem with this doctrine as I see it. Maybe you can explain to me how it is not. Thanks.
God bless
Bob,
I don't have time to address all of your dump truck post. I find it funny that there is a doctrine of wax candles in the Catholic Church. ROFLOL.
I will address a couple.
"The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. "
Here are just a couple of the MANY quotes LONG before the 11th century that show that the Church viewed the Mass as a sacrifice.
The Didache
This passage contains a direct reference to the fulfillment of Malachy's prophecy being the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (cf. Malachy 1:11, 14). The Didache is one of the most ancient and authoritative Christian writings, reflecting the teachings and liturgical practices of the first-century Church.
"On the Lord's own day assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure . . . your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have a saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice' (Greek: thysia) . . . for I am a mighty king says the Lord and My name spreads terror among the nations'" (A.D. 98).
"He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said, 'This is My Body.' And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the world . . . concerning which Malachy, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: 'From the rising of the sun to the going down, My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name and a pure sacrifice . . . ' indicating in the plainest manner that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and at that a pure one" (Against Heresies 4,17,5; A.D. 170).
Lots more here.
http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-fathers-explain-mass.html
Bob,
Let me address this item of yours as well.
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079
Celibacy wasn't practiced in the Church before Hildebrand? I hope that is not what you are saying. I also hope you are not saying that there was no teaching on celibacy in scripture since in Matt 19 Jesus CLEARLY presents a teaching on celibacy when Peter says of marriage "then it is better not to marry" and Jesus says "to some this has been given for the sake of the kingdom". He doesn't say no you are wrong Peter. And of course Paul's words in 1 Cor 7 say that he wishes that those who are single would remain single (celibate) as he was at the time he wrote the passage.
All you quiping about Peter and Paul being marrried are red herrings as celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. Priests, Bishops and Popes can an have been married in history. We fully acknowledge that. In fact there are many married priests in the CC today. Eastern Rite priests are allowed to be married. Also Latin Rite priests where celibacy is mandatory as a discipline for most, are married when they are allowed to be ordained as priests when they come in to the CC from another denomination. For instance Anglican priests coming in to the Church are usually married and are allowed to become Catholic priests.
As far as Peter being married there is a bit of a problem with this. Certainly he had been married because it talks about his mother-in-law in Mark 1. Funny thing is though it never mentions his wife. Further he happens to be living with his brother Andrew at the time. This would be a bit odd if Peter was married at the time. It also shows that Andrew was probably not married at the time either. In fact history tells us Peter was a widower.
I think that the problem here is a misunderstanding of what all the Solas actually mean. If you look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, it doesn't define the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the elementary sense most people understand it to mean. I think that James White cited a very good definition, but I can't recall what it was at the moment.
What I personally was speaking about in terms of Sola Scriptura making sense and "Occam's Razor" doing the rest is simply that if you don't have some normative principle by which to judge ALL things relating to doctrinal and soteriological matters you end up with aberrant doctrines like Papal Infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary- doctrines that have no basis in history up until the latter quarter of the second millennium A.D. (which is why I wouldn't be too zealous throwing around that petros/petra argument considering that these doctrines are just as faulty according to your own standards). Think of Sola Scriptura in a manner similar to that of the U.S. Constitution, a document of negative liberties restricting mankind's sinful nature when it comes to governmental authority. The same principle can be paralleled with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura restricting man's sinful nature when it comes to church authority.
I don't want to be rude, but I really want to be finished with this discussion. I'm going to leave some links to some works/sites that I think you all should take a look at. Enjoy:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/solascriptura.html
http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Webster.html
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/essentials.html
http://effectualgrace.com/2011/10/17/well-done-phil/
http://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdf
http://www.archive.org/stream/a607385500salmuoft#page/n5/mode/2up
& pretty much anything by James White. You can check out his site here: http://www.aomin.org/
Last post (I forgot to put in one more link):
http://nicenecouncil.com/media/display.pl?media_file=74
I want to take Anon's wise advise over the tone of my conversation with Tarls and Gerald.
So I extend a heart felt apology to both you guys for suspecting you of being Jesuit Co-Agitators and then speaking to you both with a tone of contempt.
I disagree with you both strongly and we may never be friends but I do respect your zeal for defending what you feel is the true Church of Christ.
May God Bless you Both.