Ratzinger: Orthodox defective, but still better than Protestants

[*Paul*]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

Protestant leaders said this was offensive and would hurt inter-denominational dialogue.

A 16-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict once headed, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in Protestant denominations.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

Why are the protestants bothered by this? The Popes opinon on such matters should hold no sway at all anymore than if Yongi Cho had said it. He does not get to decide this - we can easily say the same thing. It's just words from the mouth of a man.

 

[lilithu]

That's all you had to say to all that I mentioned?

Sorry, I didn't mean to dis you! :sorry1: I read what you said and accepted that it reflected your point of view. You didn't convince me, but neither did I disagree so strongly that I felt the need to respond.

See post#14 for the acknowledgement. I didn't say liberals, but I certainly was thinking of them. But not them alone.

Ok. I'm also in little bit of a hurry since I'm meeting a friend for dinner, which may have added to my curtness. I'll come back to this after dinner. But truly Victor, I meant what I said about acknowledging that you are a nice guy, so that even when we disagree we can do so amicably. It wasn't my intention to be terse or anything.

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry, I didn't mean to dis you! :sorry1: I read what you said and accepted that it reflected your point of view. You didn't convince me, but neither did I disagree so strongly that I felt the need to respond.


Ok. I'm also in little bit of a hurry since I'm meeting a friend for dinner, which may have added to my curtness. I'll come back to this after dinner. But truly Victor, I meant what I said about acknowledging that you are a nice guy, so that even when we disagree we can do so amicably. It wasn't my intention to be terse or anything.

Oh I know Lil... . Even when I disagree strongly with you, I can't get myself to ever express that to you, because....well...I like you... ...and everybody in this forum knows Lil has well thought out posts. I, and I'm sure many others respect and like that about you immensely. I know I do. I make it a point to give you the time to exchange thoughts with you. I can't say I do that with everybody.

No worries, you do what you have to ITRW...and we can chat later.

 

[Katzpur]

Don't both the LDS and Catholic churches believe they are the only "true" churches? How can that be good for uniting?

Please see my comments to Lilithu in the post just below this one. She said everything I could possibly have thought to say -- only better. I can't think of a single word to add.

 

[Katzpur]

I hear a lot of people in this thread saying, "Well he's only saying what we also believe about ourselves - that we're the 'right' church."

THAT is not the issue.

Most religions believe that they are ultimately "right" or superior in some way to all other religions. Not just amongst the Christian denominations but ultimately also other religions that are known for being tolerant. Buddhism, for example. The bottom line is that you wouldn't be whatever particular religion you are if you didn't feel that it was in some way better, more right, more true.

The thing that actually makes religions different from each other in terms of whether they are known for their tolerance of others is:

1. What they believe the consequences of being "less than right" is. ie - do you believe that everyone else is going to Hell or do you believe that in the end we all end up in the same "place" or do you believe something in between?

2. How often they talk about it. ie - when speaking with others, do you focus on what's different or what's held in common? Do you see others as sisters and brothers who are maybe slightly mislead but ultimately still your family, or do you see "the other"?

I think 1 and 2 are linked.

Did JPII believe ultimately that the Catholic Church is the right Church? Of course he did. That went without saying...literally. The question still is, as lunamoth asked, why is Ratzinger making a point of talking about it now?

Lilithu,
You are so right... Down to the last dotted 'i' and crossed 't.' I used to think of myself as fairly articulate, but you have expressed my opinion infinitely better than I could have ever done myself. :clap

 

[Buttercup]

Yes, and so does the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually, so does Islam. The problem is not so much with that belief (to me, it's only logical that two contradictory doctrines cannot both be true) as it is with the way it's presented. That's why I was so impressed by John Paul II. He clearly believed that the Catholic Church is the only "true" Church on earth or he wouldn't have been the Pope. What he did not do was rub everybody else's noses in it.

Basically I meant the only "true" Christian church. It saddens me that Christian denominations feel they have to add the "true" distinction and that you can't obtain salvation through any other Christian church. How the hell any person is supposed to decide the correct path to "salvation" is beyond me when you have not only a multitude of non Christian religious choices, but quite a few so called Christian "true" choices as well.

 

[Katzpur]

Basically I meant the only "true" Christian church. It saddens me that Christian denominations feel they have to add the "true" distinction and that you can't obtain salvation through any other Christian church. How the hell any person is supposed to decide the correct path to "salvation" is beyond me when you have not only a multitude of non Christian religious choices, but quite a few so called Christian "true" choices as well.

Well, as I'm sure you know (Hi! It's good to see you again! ), my Church does not see it quite like that. But since the word "true" bothers you, perhaps you could explain how it is possible for 1 + 1 to equal 2 and at the same time for 1 + 1 to equal 3.

 

[Buttercup]

Well, as I'm sure you know (Hi! It's good to see you again! )

Thank you, likewise.

my Church does not see it quite like that. But since the word "true" bothers you, perhaps you could explain how it is possible for 1 + 1 to equal 2 and at the same time for 1 + 1 to equal 3.

Uh, I have no idea. Guess you'll have to give me a math lesson.

 

[James the Persian]

I think the hope on the Catholic side has been that they could essentially bring all the Orthodox Churches into the RCC as Uniates. You would still have to accept papal infallibility and all that goes with it, and it was never realistic to expect that. I see it as an attempted power grab that was doomed to fail, but I guess you can't blame them for trying.

I'm sure you're right. Many of us have always been sure what you say is true and what has worried us (as I'm sure you know) is that some of our heirarchs appear to have believed that it wasn't. I can't help recalling that it was under Turkish pressure that some heirarchs agreed to the false union of Florence and it's to a large part due to Turkish pressure that the current EP seems determined to head in the same direction. I wish they'd leave Istanbul and set up in exile somewhere else, rather like the Antiochian Patriarchate in Damascus, so that we can leave all this nonsense behind us, but I doubt they will. At least I can confidently predict that any such union, like that of Florence is doomed to failure and rightfully so.

Rome's been trying to get us to bow down to the Pope since before the schism and I see no reason why she should stop, so in that sense I don't blame her, but in anotther sense I do. I blame Rome for not being honest about her intentions, a lack of honesty that has left us with a few poor deluded churches that honestly believe that they are Orthodox in communion with Rome but who are treated as neither Orthodox by us (because they aren't) nor properly RC by the Latins (and believe me I have seen first hand the disdain with which Latin congregations often treat their 'Greek Catholic' neighbours - you can't miss it in the region my wife is from). If that's what would be in store for us in any reconcilliation (and it clearly is) then, no thanks. When we say that Rome would have to return to first millennium ecclesiology for reconcilliation to occur, we mean it. What this Pope means (and he has stated that this is what Rome must do himself) is anyone's guess, first millennium in some paralel universe perhaps.

James

 

[FFH]

No offense FFH, but your church believes the same thing. We just use different words to describe it. Don't be a hypocrite.

I've never understood the problem that some Mormons have with Catholics. It disgusts me.

Salvation comes in and through Jesus Christ and to say that no other Christian church has the means whereby to be saved is acting no less than a false prophet and an adversary to Christ.

All Christian religions who profess salvation through Christ will be "saved" in at least the Telestial kingdom and will be part of the first resurrection, those who were "Christ's at his coming".

People like Ratzinger will not be part of this first resurrection, having denied the power of Jesus Christ to save all souls...

I would never say a statement such as Ratzinger has proclaimed..

He is acting on his own. but also as a representative of the Vatican, and does not speak for all Catholics.

My wife is a former Catholic and would have never said such a thing and we as LDS would never say that other Christian denominations do not have the means whereby to be "saved"...

This simply is not true...

Even without baptism and all the other necessary ordinances of the resotred gospel of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, men can be "saved" in the Terrestria {second) highest kingdom, which Christ will visit and administer to, it being a portion of salvation for those who accept and believe in Christ and do his will, but who do not accept the "fullness of the Father"..

I know my doctrine and Ratzinger and any LDS who believes the same as Ratzinger are WAY OFF....

All other Christian denominations who profess Christ as their savior will be a part of salvation and will be sent to spirit paradise and await their final judgement and recieve their reward either in the Terrestrial or Celestial kindgom according to the acceptance or rejection of the fullness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ..

 

[FFH]

Ratzinger is basically damning anyone who professes not to be a part of his faith...

The body of Christ is varied, as is salvation, which is offered to all people and members of religions who profess Christ as their savior and strive to keep his commandments.

Salvation is general, exaltation, as in the LDS faith, is more specific...

Even those who inherit the Telestial (lowest) kingdom, will eventianlly be saved from hell and inherit that world.

Christ came so that ALL might be saved from hell, but many will have to pay for their own sins, either because they didn't believe in Christ or they did not turn from their sins or both, but ALL will eventially be saved or delivered from hell and recieve a kingdom of glory, except those "sons of perdition" who will be redeemed from hell and cast into outer darkness...

Hell will be left for the devil and his fallen angels to dwell in for eternity, that being their portion according to their desires for that which is evil..

Ratzinger may believe in Jesus Christ, but he is proving himself to be anything but Christ-like, by condemning those not of the Catholic faith to hell basically, having not the "means of salvation"..,

Are we to repeat the "Inquisition" in the last days ??? Revelation tells us we will...

Many will be beheaded for refusing to take upon themselves "the mark" of the next and final Pope...

John Paul II is probably turning in his grave...

 

[James the Persian]

Ratzinger is basically damning anyone who professes not to be a part of his faith...

No, he really isn't. Roman Catholic (or Orthodox, or even,from what I understand, your own church's) ecclesiology simply doesn't work that way. To say that all other churches are not really in the Church is not to condemn anyone to damnation whatsoever. I would certainly never shy from stating that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is visible, cannot be divided and is us. Hence, anyone who is not a member of the Orthodox Church is not in the Church, full stop. Does that mean that there are no Christians outside the Church or that all those outside Her are damned? Absolutely not.

I must, of course, disagree with what the Pope does say as by Orthodox reckoning Rome is not just schismatic but heretical, but he is merely saying what I have said above but from the Roman Catholic rather than Orthodox perspective. I've heard similar from your coreligionists with regards the LDS perspective too. The Pope did not make any statement about the salvation of those outside the RCC whatsoever and the fact that you think he does merely highlights your misunderstanding of Roman ecclesiology.

James

 

[FFH]

Does that mean that there are no Christians outside the Church or that all those outside Her are damned? Absolutely not.

Saying that no one outside the Catholic church has the "means of salvation" is a clear and concise statement. There is no middle ground. Either you are "saved" or you are "damned"....

There is no middle ground with Christ on this issue, there are however degrees of "salavation," according to LDS doctrine...

Ratzinger left no room for salvation outside the Catholic church; "we" not having the "means" whereby to be saved..

Salvation is a free gift to all who repent of their sins and believe in Christ as their savior and mediator with the Father...

No church has the power to save it's members, in general, but we as LDS believe that certain ordinaces are required in order to be saved and exalted in the highest degree of the highest kingdom of God...

Salvation is general and varied and will be eventually given/rewarded to all, in some degree or another, except those "sons of perdition" who will be redeemed from hell but cast into outer darkness. People like Hitler and the many anntichrist's like him who have willingly murdered innocent people for their faith in God...

Are we to repeat this again in the last days ???

Will many be killed for not believing as the Pope says ???

Revelation tells us this will happpen again before Christ returns to earth and puts a final stop to the killing and persecution of the saints of God, those who profess Christ as their savior and do his will...

Salvation is a fee gift to all if we meet the necessary requirements, which no church has the keys to, because it come in and throgh Christ and in and through him alone...

Exaltation in the highest kingdom of God is different issue and is only obtained by accepting the necessary ordinances of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ...

This is an entirely different statement than what Ratzinger has stated, basically condemning all those not of the Catholic faith to hell because we don't have the "means of salvation"...

Either you have the means or you don't. This will lead to a final controversy between the two churches...

The church of the devil and the Church of the Lamb...

You might be surprised that this is found in the Book of Mormon..

1 Nephi 14: 10

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the hoar of all the earth.

I know "whereby" my "salvation cometh"...it's "only in and through Jesus Christ" not any not through being a member of any church..

Exaltation on the other hand is a different issue and requires certain "actions".

I must, of course, disagree with what the Pope does say as by Orthodox reckoning Rome is not just schismatic but heretical, but he is merely saying what I have said above but from the Roman Catholic rather than Orthodox perspective. I've heard similar from your coreligionists with regards the LDS perspective too. The Pope did not make any statement about the salvation of those outside the RCC whatsoever and the fact that you think he does merely highlights your misunderstanding of Roman ecclesiology.

There is nothing to misunderstand.

Either you have the means whereby to be saved or you don't...

I know in whom I trust and "whereby" my "salvation cometh," does Ratzinger ???

It seems he is trusting in an earthly organization for his salvation....

It has been prophecied that he will be killed, even so far as to say that he will be stoned to death...

Ratzinger is not representing Christ, but the Vatican or a man made organization...

If the members of the Catholic church believe the same as Ratzinger's statement then they too are guilty of misrepresenting Christ and from where salvation comes.

 

[Quiddity]

Saying that no one outside the Catholic church has the "means of salvation" is a clear and concise statement. There is no middle ground. Either you are "saved" or you are "damned"....

If you care to understand what it is we teach,

See post# 20:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=877416#post877416

 

[Smoke]

Saying that no one outside the Catholic church has the "means of salvation" is a clear and concise statement. There is no middle ground. Either you are "saved" or you are "damned"....

That's a very Protestant way of looking at it. Orthodox and Catholics don't always feel bound to make such flat pronouncements. Theophan the Recluse, for instance, wrote:

You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.​

 

[Quiddity]

That's a very Protestant way of looking at it. Orthodox and Catholics don't always feel bound to make such flat pronouncements. Theophan the Recluse, for instance, wrote:

You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.​

I like that...

Wasn't very familiar with him.

 

[James the Persian]

I like that...

Wasn't very familiar with him.

Why should you be familiar with a Russian post-Schism saint? He was very wise, though, and is much loved by many of us. I've quoted him on the forums before (and in fact this exact quote at least once) but I wouldn't expect you to know any more about him than I do about post-Schism Roman saints - which isn't a huge amount, though obviously I know some.

James

 

[lilithu]

Why should you be familiar with a Russian post-Schism saint?

Um...then why was MB familiar with him?

Surely you don't mean to suggest that we should only be familiar with people within our own, narrow traditions?

 

[FFH]

If you care to understand what it is we teach,

See post# 20:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=877416#post877416

I understand quite clearly...and I've read that post several times so as not to misunderstand...

whoever is saved is saved by the grace of God and it is through the Church that this happens

No one outside the Catholic church can be saved by God's grace...even Christians...without being an active member of the Catholic church and participating in it's rituals, like partaking of the wine and bread (eucharist).

What's there to misunderstand ????

This kind of thinking will lead to a modern day Inquisition, which is prophesied in Revelation...

 

[lilithu]

"whoever is saved is saved by the grace of God and it is through the Church that this happens"

No one outside the Catholic church can be saved by God's grace...even Christians...

What is there to misunderstand...

Actually... just taking the quoted sentence at face value... the way that I understand that is:
There are some people who are saved.
And there are some people who are not saved.
We don't know which are which.
But we do know that those who are saved, are saved because of the Church.

In other words, even if you are outside of the Catholic church, you still may be saved. But you are saved through the Catholic church.