Pope Endorses Catholicism

What He Said 178 Comments

I’m shocked – shocked – I tell you.
Update, from the comments – Kathy Shaidle recommends Mark Shea’s response to the media reports. “Exactly what Rome did *not* say is that the Catholic Church is the ‘only true Church’. Never mind. It makes a short headline for journalists who cannot be bothered to think.”

178 Replies to “Pope Endorses Catholicism”

  1. Not sure I understand… I didn’t think that any of the other Christian denominations recognized the Pope as their leader, now they’re upset because he doesn’t recognize their religions as true Christian faiths?
    Amusing to say the least.

  3. Would any of these churches now up in arms have a similar reaction to a Mullah calling them “infidels?”
    Well?

  4. “It states that Christ established only one Church here on earth”
    Where exactly in the bible did Jesus utter the word “church”. Or supposed use a word that meant “Catholic”.
    Kathy, help me out here if you will. When was this first Roman Catholic church established, either in physical or emotional construction? Was Jesus even alive at the birth of the Roman Catholic Church?
    Heeeeeeelp someone.

  5. I think the quote was “thou are Peter (petros -ie rock) and upon this rock I will build my church.
    but it would have to be generously translated to get to this point.
    the early Christians in Rome would have to mimic a structure of a synogogue and likely would have had Peter as sort of a priest or rabbi though I doubt he would have considered himself as a rabbi.
    first recognized church ? christians were recognized at the time of Nero around 64 AD.about 30 years after they go on missions out of Isreal. I think that is the first recorded mention of Christians outside of the bible.
    “they burn Rome as the bidding of one Christos” or something along that line. Josephus.

  6. Churches and religions [man made things, by the way], are fun clubs that can function like corporations as well as mould social behaviour.
    Forgiving your neighbour makes for a peaceful neighbourhood. Not a Muslim practice these days it seems.
    The Pope is getting free editorial mention and thus keeping the Catolic church high profile without paid advertising. Crafty. = TG

  7. Geothermal — just off the top of my head… Christ said, “upon this rock I will build my church”, and, “tell it to the church”. He talked about new wine not being poured into old wineskins, and talked about establishing a new covenant in his blood — all of which points to the birth of the Church.
    He commanded that his followers remain in Jerusalem until they be endued with power, which they were when the Holy Spirit descended upon them on the Day of Pentecost. This represents the formal beginning of the church, and also represents the transfer of the Spirit of God from Judaism (and the Old Covenant) to those who confess faith in Christ (and the New Covenant).
    The apostle Paul commanded that “overseers” be appointed in each church. This functional role of providing oversight grew into the more structural role of bishop.
    By tradition, the first bishop of Rome was Peter, Christ’s right-hand man. The apostle Paul also ministered to the church at Rome. The second bishop was Linus, I believe. Over time, a single bishop established his authority over each city or geographical area, and the bishop of Rome gradually asserted his authority over the other bishops.
    The role of bishops was especially important in the era between the writing of the New Testament documents and their formal recognition and adoption as the canon of Scripture, which I believe was around the time of Constantine. From that point on, we have the authentic apostolic witness in the form of the canon of the New Testament and are, perhaps, less dependent upon the authority of bishops, especially if/when their teaching clearly deviates from the witness of Scripture. Many churches, such as Baptist churches, clearly do quite well without the formal authority of bishops, relying instead upon the authority of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit.
    The Christian Eusebius wrote a very early Church history. It makes fascinating reading as it gets you very close to the early origins of the Christian church.

  8. If I’m not mistaken, “catholic” means (essentially) “universal” or “world-wide” or something like that. Roman Catholic is just a name given to a specific doctrine or sect of the Christian religion, if you will.
    Christ did not create a “church”…God did not create a “church”. Where two or more believers are gathered together, that can be considered a “church” as far as the Bible goes. The apostles spread out and preached the scriptures and believers gathered together in the various areas the apostles visited and local “churches” were created.
    Kathy Shaidle would be the better scholar on this, but I think it is believed that the apostle Paul started what has now become known as the “Roman Catholic Church”. Although I am no scholar by any means, I suspect that a lot of the history of the founding of the Roman Catholic Church is “politically” driven “religion”, as opposed to “true Christian faith”.
    However, I personally do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church fully follows the Bible for various reasons (I’ve had one priest admit this to me directly), though I will grant that they do seem to be by far the most vocal in defending the Christian faith. For the Pope to claim that other “churches” are not “true” churches is, in my opinion foolish…has he not read Revelations where the Holy Spirit visits “all” seven churches and finds them ALL TO BE AT FAULT and backslidden?
    As for outrage…pshaw! No true “Christian” should be outraged, but should turn the other cheek. Then, they should gently rebuke the Pope for having said something so silly.

  9. I as an Orthodox Christian find this unacceptable and the pope does not speak for all Christians!

  10. I as an Orthodox Christian find this unacceptable and the pope does not speak for all Christians!

  11. I am a Protestant and not a Catholic because I prefer Protestant theology and have problems with Catholic theology.
    Because Catholics feel the reverse is true does not cause me to get my dress up over my head.
    This is only a story because any public assertion of Christian theology (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) bugs the secular leftists who run the MSM

  12. I like how the Pope tossed this comment out right before he went on holidays. Kinda like when you hit “Send” on the flame email cc’ing everyone and then run out of the office for the long weekend.
    Pope’s got a sense of humor!

  13. Thanks Eeyore, Richard Ball and Cal2. I am consistently amazed at what I can learn from this site.

  14. OMIGOD the Pope’s a Catholic!
    Isn’t this something they’ve been saying pretty consistantly for oh, 2000 years or so.
    It’s the sappy, suburban sentimentalism, that gives us enviro-mentalism and Peta, that says all religions are the same thing, including the Religion of Peace, which supposedly makes this shocking.
    Hey, folks, islam isn’t a religion of peace, but domination. SHocking.

  15. “Other Christian denominations, it argues, cannot be called Churches in the proper sense because they cannot trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.”
    The Roman Catholic Church has historical legitimacy, but lacks functional legimacy to the extent that its teachings deviate from those laid down by the apostles as encapsulated in the New Testament Scriptures.
    Since Christianity is, at heart, a message, and people become Christians by hearing the word of God and believing it, the Holy Spirit is presumably free to raise up believers in any time and any place who may or may not have any formal connection with the orginal historical church.
    The Church should rejoice at this!
    On the day of Pentecost, the authenticating sign was not the presence of bishops, or even apostles, but the Holy Spirit; the same is true today.
    It is true that, as a matter of order, each church in a geographical area is to have properly appointed overseers, but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to indicate that they must all report to the bishop of a particular jurisdiction, i.e., Rome, or that only bishops directly or indirectly appointed by him have present-day legitimacy.

  16. Well, as a Protestant, I’m not really concerned about what the Pope thinks about me or the denomination I attend, nor am I offended. Do think his comments are a little silly, however.

  17. Simeon, you may not recognize the pope but if you are Orthodox, the Pope recognizes you 🙂
    In this document (which is awkwardly written in the typical Vatican manner, then badly reported in the typical MSM manner) is trying to root out the “all religions are exactly the same” mess that has made its way into Catholic schools and other institutions.
    However (since my name came up) I defer to a much better Catholic, blogger Mark Shea for a good explanation/discussion of this if you care. He has one post about it already and no doubt more will follow. He is also a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, so he is the go to guy for Protestant questions, in my opinion.
    http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html#801542489031691315
    Mark Shea writes as of this a.m.:
    > “What Rome means is ‘Where there’s no valid eucharist, there’s no Church’ because the Eucharist is what makes the Church the Church. What Rome does *not* mean is ‘Protestants aren’t Christian. God hates Protestants. Only the Catholic Church is a true Church’.
    > “Protestant congregations are in real, but imperfect communion with the Church. That’s because ‘we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’. If you are validly baptised, you are Christian. And, by the way, the Church *does* recognized non-Catholic bodies as true Churches (think ‘Orthodox’, for instance). It’s all about the Eucharist, baby. If you’ve got a valid one, you’re a Church. If you don’t, but you still adhere to the basics of the Creed, you’re an ecclesial body.
    > “Exactly what Rome did *not* say is that the Catholic Church is the ‘only true Church’. Never mind. It makes a short headline for journalists who cannot be bothered to think.”

  18. don’t mess with the Pope . . he has an in with the Big Weather Guy up there.
    Don’t tell Dr. Fruit Fly . . .
    3w.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2053468.ece
    From Times Online
    July 10, 2007
    First snowfall in Buenos Aires since 1918
    Buenos Aires strollers enjoy a once-in-a-lifetime walk in the snow
    (Enrique Marcarian/Reuters)
    Buenos Aires strollers enjoy a once-in-a-lifetime walk in the snow
    Philippe Naughton
    Last time it happened, it inspired a tango.
    Thousands of Argentinians cheered, threw snowballs and walked wide-eyed through the streets of Buenos Aires last night as the city enjoyed its first proper snowfall since 1918.
    Wet snow fell for hours in the Argentine capital, leaving behind a mushy, thin white mantle by evening after freezing air from Antarctica collided with a moisture-laden low pressure system.
    “Despite all my years, this is the first time I’ve ever seen in snow in Buenos Aires,” said Juana Benitez, an 82-year-old who joined children celebrating in the streets.

  19. Kathie said
    “…this document … is trying to root out the “all religions are exactly the same” mess that has made its way into Catholic schools and other institutions”
    which I think pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

  20. Quasi-historical gobbledy-gook, arguing over a bunch of misc. writings and other assorted gibberish that various people claim to be experts on.
    But in reality, no one really has the slightest clue ..
    But again, thats just MHO.

  21. http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/666.htm
    A good read if you want to learn about who the sign of the beast, 666, belongs to.
    The Catholic Church and all it represents is a disgrace to all humanity; the Catholic Church is just a power base, with no Holy Spirit, thus no truth.

  22. interesting Hammer of Thor. If one were to live in any of the Scandanavian countries about a thousand years ago , the Hammer of Thor would have been considered gospel too.

  24. Yep – and it makes as much sense (to me anyway) as any of the other mainstream religions out there. Btw, if you want to read about some religious debauchery, look up the rituals they went thru when a Viking chieftan kicked the bucket.
    We all like our various flavours of mysticism, and I think the nootka’s original theory of how we all came to be makes as much sense as the next guys theory, and for reasons unknown I can still tell when there is a raven following me when I am hunting long before I see or hear it, and I’ll go out of my way to make sure one comes to no harm.

  25. “Exactly what Rome did *not* say is that the Catholic Church is the ‘only true Church’. Never mind. It makes a short headline for journalists who cannot be bothered to think.”
    This is true. The Vatican “Responses” do recognize other “true Churches” so the Roman Catholic Church is not saying it is the one true church. Indeed, the Vatican expressly recognizes that there are other churches which “merit the title of “particular or local Churches” and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches” (so Kathy is right about awkwardly written as well).
    That doesn’t apply to Protestant churches however which are mere “Communities” and not true churches. “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 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.”
    So basically the Vatican is telling its flock: yes, there are other “churches” but only if they believe the same stuff as we do about apostolic succession (sacraments and Eucharist) and in any event they are just the local outfit under the the “Church of God” which just happens to be us, the Roman Catholic Church, but only those. Those
    Protestants are nice enough folk, even sometimes “venerable” and those “churches” as they call them are “deprived neither of significance nore importance in the mystery of salvation”. But, come on folks, they are just “Communities”, not churches, and “they suffer from defects” which “lack something in their condition”. So come on in and have the priest give you a wafer and some wine, and know that it ain’t just bread and it ain’t just fruit from the grape, if you want the truth.
    That about right?
    And why shouldn’t they pronounce this hierarchy?Makes about as much or as little sense as saying you aren’t really a Christian if you don’t believe the literal truth of every word in the Bible.

  26. Curiously inept, from a outsider’s perspective. Does the Catholic Church have such internal issues to address with provocative pronouncements that the Pope would knowingly risk offending pretty much the rest of the world by making the statement?

  27. Sounds like he chickened out in his rationalist confrontation with the musulamans and has decided in favour of the easier battle with the effetes closer to home.
    All praise to Christopher Hitchens, Ibn Warraq and Richard Dawkins.

  28. Ted said: “Down with the Catholic Church!”
    Wow. What a statistical improbability! A Liberal blogger…inciting hatred towards Christians! Catholics in particular! On the internet, even! Has somebody notified Ripley’s?
    Some other clown said:     “…that the Pope would knowingly risk offending pretty much the rest of the world… “
    If the rest of the world is in the slightest offended with what the Pope said then the rest of the world is a pussy.

  29. Andrew, pussies or not, the Pope had to know this would be the effect–grant him that much perspecuity. The question is why did he want/risk the obvious effect.

  30. Andrew: what are you smoking and where can I get some?
    How is repeating what the “Responses” actually say bashing the Catholic Church?
    Frankly, I don’t give a crap what any church says about themselves. I find the discussion between adherents of different faiths over who is a true “Christian” or “church” equally boring and fascinating, but don’t hold any beef with them for believing themselves to be right.
    Of course they are going to say “having looked at all of the evidence, it just so happens that we concluded that we got it right all along”. It would be pretty moronic to say anything else. As the post states: “Pope Endorses Catholicism. I’m shocked – shocked – I tell you.”

  31. It’s only offensive to a pussy like you, murray, and a few assorted professional Christianity haters. Believe it or not the rest of the world isn’t as big of a pussy as you. People who are easily offended are by definition intolerant and therefore racist and sexist and homophobic, btw.

  32. Catholic priests believe and teach only Catholics can go to heaven, and some of the members of their congregations believe this too; Protestants have known for a long time that Catholics are taught this – it’s just a way to keep followers in the fold….sounds familiar doesn’t it.

  33. Andrew, I’m not offended; nor did I write that I was. I am amused. Learn to read.

  34. murray at July 10, 2007 5:37 PM
    Murray, because Christians have Churches, not Mosques, so he isn’t worried about his head being served on a platter somewhere.

  35. Kathy: We are not saved by baptism but by grace, through faith. (Eph 2:8). Baptism without faith is meaningless. Christians are those who believe in Christ and follow Him.

  36. As Will Rogers used to say “…all I know is what I read in the newspapers…”.
    Regarding the “…believe the literal truth of every word in the Bible…”, I have a couple of comments:
    1. Jesus is quoted in the New Testament as saying (in effect) that the Old Testament is the word of God and correct. If the Son of God says it’s good, then who should argue that point?
    2. If you don’t believe the whole of the New Testament was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that it is literally true, how do you know which parts are true and which parts are not? Do you base it on your own imperfect judgement and not that of the eyewitnesses and apostles of Christ? Therefore, if you don’t believe it ALL, how can you logically believe any of it. When you become a Christian, you are buying a package deal when it comes to the Bible…it is not a menu that you can pick and choose from as you like.
    Therefore, all anyone knows for sure about God and Christ is written in the Bible and nowhere else. “All I know is what is written on the paper”
    But, don’t presume that I am a Christian (anymore) by what I’ve written here…I’ve moved beyond it into agnosticism.

  37. Ted: Keep talking, bub, the statistics don’t lie and right now the statistics show Liberal bloggers making anti-Christian posts and comments at an alarming rate. I might ask what you’re smoking; atheist societies such as East Germany and Cambodia have been proven to be death cults and if you were a smarter man you’d be criticizing the anti-religion sentiment so prevalent among your kind.

  38. Link doesn’t work and I’d like to read the article.
    The R.C. church have their own interpretation of scripture that varies in several areas from the original Hebrew and Greek, but, hey, they’ve lasted this long and converted people (almost with the sword) for a few centuries but Luther (God Bless Him)had a revelation that saved the rest of us.
    Peter was a ‘small rock’ while Jesus referred to Himself as The Rock on which the church is built. It’s a scripture that isn’t crystal clear but one has to take that passage in context with the rest of scripture.
    Paul never deferred to Peter but his (Paul’s) letters teach us that the church is the believers pure and simple. Peter himself never portrayed himself as the head guy in the palace, so what the Pope says matters to his flock only – not the worldwide church to whom it doesn’t apply.
    Read the revelation of Jesus to John.

  39. roman catholic church===big business and big money
    protestant church===smaller busines and thusly smaller money
    all are just a bunch of scam-artists IMNSHO

  40. I agree with Craig. I’m a protestant myself, but I’d be amazed if Catholics, the Pope especially, didn’t believe they were following the correct path and that others had strayed. To believe otherwise would require that the Pope and his followers be completely disingenuous in their belief.
    Perhaps it’s the fact that the Pope genuinely believes his creed and isn’t just mouthing words for window dressing that is so shockingly incomprehensible to two-faced, opportunistic, liberals. Thus the “news” story.

  41. I believe those Protestants who are “angered” by this statement are those who are chasing unity with a doctrine-be-damned attitude. The fact is, the issues of justification and authority (to list 2 of the 5 “solas”) are every bit as real today as they were 500 years ago.
    Only by ignoring these huge doctrinal issues could there ever be unity with the Catholic Church.

  42. The pope has no authority to define a “true” church. Any group of Christians can be a church. There is no need for bishops or popes or a synod or even a church organization.
    Jesus said: “Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.” All Christians (believers) belong to the true church, which is the church of which Christ is the head.

  43. News headline:
    Pope speaks to non-Catholics and doesn’t threaten to behead them.
    Next up, why the Pope is intolerant of Islam.

  46. Traditionally the Catholic Church has regarded Protestantism as “apostasy”, which comes from a Greek word meaning “to desert a post”.
    Naturally Protestantism disagrees with this, and the word Protestantism, of course, comes from the word “protest”.
    Luther challenged a lot of things he regarded as unsound and abusive in respect to the Catholic hierarchy. And we need look no further than the terrible improprieties on the part of bishops switching pedophiles from parish to parish to understand how a Church hierarchy can cover corruption.
    This is not to say that most priests and bishops are not completely honorable people, but the ecclesiastical hierarchy has been known to forgive abuses because of the opportunities invited by its structure.
    The Catholic Church likes to see itself as the original, authentic Church, and Protestanism as “separated brethen”. Protestantism generally sees itself somewhat as Canada, Australia, and the US do in our relationships with Great Britain. Great Britain is still there and still one of the stauch allies in the struggle for freedom, and yet the rest of these nations, while acknowledging this fact, are now very much our own unique nations and feel a complete independence from Britain even while we appreciate and acknowledge it.
    Father Andew Greeley (a priest most well-known for writing lascivious books and being part of the Chicago-Daly machine) has pointed out that the Catholic Church would do well to canonize Martin Luter for sainthodd as a first step toward conciliation. He has also pointed out (he’s a good sociologist, despite his horrible political views) that the Catholic Church is analogical and Protestants dialectical. So even the method or way that Protestants and Catholics think about these issues are different. I agree with him when he says that the two different perspectives create value in both communions because it helps keep each in line.
    One could go on and on, but my own view in the Christian context is most similar to that of the theologian Paul Tillich. And while Tillich is regarded by Catholics as a Protestant theologian, Tillich regarded himself as Augustinian. So as you can see, these divisions often begin to minimize themselves with scrutiny in respect to theological positions. I regard both Catholicism and Protestantism as co-equally legitmate representatives of the Christian religion. (Kathy Shaidle has had two excellent posts recently in respect to the Catholic practice of annulment and the theology of the body.

  47. “And then- Joe finally did something smart. He paid a lot of money to L. Ron Hoover, and the First Church of Appliantology.”
    – Frank Zappa
    Does a belief in any form of religion represent brain damage, or mental illness? (Or- are they just really really stoopid?)

  48. Actually Greg protestant comes from a much more positive word pro (for) test (shortened for testify) same meaning as the word used now, evangelical. The negative connotation came later because so much of the protestant message was negative.
    Personally I am an orthodox catholic in belief and an evangelical Christian in my practice. Further I trace the roots of my faith and practice back to the apostles and was baptized by immersion by one who could trace his belief back through apostolic succession. Most of the early protestant leaders were catholic clergy who the Catholic Church, at one point said were able to baptize in apostolic succession. The problem many of the early Protestants had was the fact that they had come to understand baptism as an act of will (adult) and done by immersion. Since all these former Catholics were baptized as infants how could they find anyone of the apostolic succession who had been baptized as an adult. Some of these leaders solved the problem by simultaneous baptism.
    I think that the Catholic Churches claim for supremacy is spurious. There are many Orthodox and Coptic Churches older than the Roman Church and at all the early church conferences the Roman church was simply held to be the first amongst equals. Thus what the Pope said was unwise if only because are lots of mutual struggles that all Christians and all churches are going through that call for unity and not division.

  49. Forgive me father- for I have sinned! (Actually, I wanna be appointed Canada’s Ambassador to the Vatican.)(Since the vatican refused to accept Alphonso Gagliano.)
    Quesion: How much of the taxpayers’ money does one have to shovel at the vatican for one of their ‘get out of jail free’ cards?

  50. I always thought the Pope was the representative of St. Peter here on earth.
    Religions are all so complicated,all practitioners of the various faiths seem to have differing interpretations.
    We have one salvation in Christianity and Judaism, we do not indoctrinate to hate and spawn our adherents to suicide bombing and terror as we are dealing with from Islam.
    That the Pope endorses Catholicism is a given! He can do so without insulting or demeaning those who practice Christianity with a slightly different set of tenets.
    How does it go, Holier than thou? Phooey.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation