I hope to go in detail into Rome’s history. Especially in the anathema’s stated in the Council of Trent and later dogmatic decrees. Then show they relate with the modern catechism.

shick on April 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM

schick, have been checkin’ in and am sorry we didn’t touch base tonight (need to go out now) but hopefully we’ll see each other on other threads. Maybe cs89 (and thanks, cs89, for the kind words re: Benedict’s faith) will show you other refs too besides the one I provided (and the paragraphs around it – see link in my post).

And here’s one more, the Wikipedia (not complete but not misleading) article on the teaching we were talking about–the section that touches on how Catholics understand it (please follow the links provided in the article for a fuller explanation). Hope you have a good evening.

Rome’s catechism also states that none can be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

One of many questions that should be asked of you.

shick on April 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Newsflash- the Pope is Catholic, and believes that the Roman Catholic church is the truest avenue of salvation through Christ. I disagree, as a protestant, and place more importance on a personal relationship with Jesus without intermediaries (e.g., priests, saints) but recognize Catholics also believe in and receive salvation.

The Catholic church does in fact recognize that salvation is possible outside the Catholic church. I don’t have time to look up specific references/links at this time, but it looks like others are going to do so. If not, I will try to later.

Blessings to all. I would also like to emphasize the many positive aspects of Benedict’s outspoken faith (cf. abortion, value of human life, importance of both faith and reason) and express my gratitude for a President who is willing to offer such a high-profile welcome to this Pope.

The key is in the definitions.

Rome’s catechism also states that none can be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
shick on April 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Just to be perfectly clear: this statement is not true. Feel free to look at whatever part of the Catechism you like, or I can help you find references later if you want.

Do you know that as Protestants we are referred to in the Roman Catholic Catechism as “seperated bretheren”? By calling us this Rome does not include us as fellow Christians
shick on April 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I’m sorry to contradict you again but this is important. “Separated brethren” is indeed a phrase that the Catholic Church uses. It means that we are brothers in Christ, aka fellow Christians. NOWHERE is it claimed that other Christians are not Christians; just the opposite is true. (Catholics are Christians too BTW; many non-Catholic Christians deny this.) “Separated” just means that we are not in full unity (though we would like to be) because some of our doctrine is different. But a lot of it is the same, something the many non-Catholic Christians I talk to find surprising once we get into the nitty gritty of the details.

Here it is in the Catechism itself:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”272

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

Toward unity

820 “Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.”278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

***

Rome’s catechism also states that none can be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
shick on April 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Not blaming you, but really this is a grave misreading of Catholic teaching and the Catechism. See the same quote above and I trust you will see that the fact that the Catholic Church believes that Jesus intended one church with the same unity He and the Father have (that’s preettty darn unified and implies complete doctrinal unity) does not equal “we don’t think other Christians are Christians.”

Another long post and I’m sorry about that. But IMO it’s really important to correct this misunderstanding with other Christians when it pops up.

(Just FYI I tend to avoid the term “Protestants” because many non-Catholic Christians I speak to find that term offensive and derivative: “We’re not ‘protesting’ anything, we’re just Christians.” Obviously the term’s not offensive to everyone. )

As noted by others, this Protestant is home in my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I do welcome Catholics, including the Pope, as my brothers/sisters in the faith and hope we all come to a greater understanding of God through mutual prayer and study.

cs89 on April 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Do you know that as Protestants we are referred to in the Roman Catholic Catechism as “seperated bretheren”? By calling us this Rome does not include us as fellow Christians. For Rome’s catechism also states that none can be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

One of many questions that should be asked of you.

Don’t you protestants feel like your missing out? Isn’t it time you all ‘came home’ too?

schiehallion on April 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM

As noted by others, this Protestant is home in my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I do welcome Catholics, including the Pope, as my brothers/sisters in the faith and hope we all come to a greater understanding of God through mutual prayer and study.

I want to add that I think the President’s reception of the Pope is fantastic. From meeting him at the plane to the White House festivities, this protestant world leader has displayed class, grace and dignity. He honors this faith leader and influential world figure, while highlighting the importance of faith and justice in world politics.

Bravo to Bush, and Pope Benedict as well.

I suppose you could tell us the chapter and verse for this, right?

baldilocks on April 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM

I provided a link that does a search of all verses with the word Holy.

Check it out.

But lots of people, Catholic and non, believe the Pope is “holy.” I think lots of non-Catholic Christians are holy too

Though we may disagree on what makes a person holy we both agree that a person can be holy.

the root word means “set apart [for God]” after all. I don’t see anything wrong with calling the Pope that, nor with calling YOU holy – after all, as a Christian, in Christ you are holy.

Yes, in context it can mean set apart [for God]” but it is used specifically for God showing him being set apart [from us].

Please do not miss my point that the title Holy is only reserved for God. You may have no problem calling me holy but I would hope that you have a problem calling me Holiness?

Non-Catholics that call themselves Protestants should adhere to the essentials of Protestantism. Words have meaning. We shouldn’t go redfining them at our whim when they already have an established definition.

In your opinion, can someone truly call himself a Roman Catholic if he publicly proclaims that the chair of Peter is currently vacant? I don’t think you would agree. In the same sense, I should point out what correct Protestant beliefs are when someone, whether intentionally or not, improperly proclaims them.

Your quote of Augustine’s quote is wonderful and backs up my point. “in essentials, unity”. The very reason I said that these commenters were not definitional Protestants was because their giving the title of Holiness is in disunity with the essentials of Protestantism.

It is good of you to quote “Do unto others” from Christ. Gentleness was well in my mind when I made my first post. After posting it, however, God once again revealed to me my imperfection (sin). I realized that I should have worded it differently and that’s why I did later.

Perhaps they care to explain how the definition of a Protestant allows them to refer to the leader of the Church of Rome as Holiness.

But you are correct in pointing out my harshness. I should have typed with more gentleness. I ask my brothers for forgiveness of my harshness.

The title His Holiness should only be reserved for the one true God. Scripture tells us that we should be holy but only gives the title “Holy” to the God-head.

Historical Protestants understood this well. It is sad that many in this modern day do not.

shick on April 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM

I suppose you could tell us the chapter and verse for this, right?

Notice that I offered my congratulations as well. You might have missed that.

shick on April 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM

You’re right, I did miss that. Thank you too.

Would you have addressed a British judge as such?

Yes actually–back then anyway. Because “worship” in English usage in that older time didn’t mean “the honor we reserve exclusively to God.” If it meant what it meant today? No I would not call a judge that. Because like you, I believe we only worship God.

But lots of people, Catholic and non, believe the Pope is “holy.” I think lots of non-Catholic Christians are holy too (you point out Scripture tells us we should be – the root word means “set apart [for God]” after all. I don’t see anything wrong with calling the Pope that, nor with calling YOU holy – after all, as a Christian, in Christ you are holy.

Anyway. Totally respect your convictions and the reasons for your desire not to use that honorific w/ Benedict XVI. But I find it hard to knock others for using it I guess. I always think of that quote attributed to Augustine when in situations like this: “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.” And a better one, from Our Lord Himself: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

and (in older British usage addressed to a judge–here it comes) “Your Worship.”

Would you have addressed a British judge as such? I would not no matter what the consequence. Your point only adds to my own.

Anyway, sure thought it was nice of them to offer kind words and birthday wishes to another religious leader. Thanks again guys.

inviolet on April 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM

I thought so as well. Notice that I offered my congratulations as well. You might have missed that.

Using the appropriate form of address for the Pope somehow invalidates our religious beliefs as protestants? How would you prefer we address him: Benny? Joe? Mr. Ratzinger? That catholic guy?

AZCoyote on April 16, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Protestants are obligated not to follow self-appointed positions if they are against His will.

Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously. – Daniel 6:10

The title His Holiness should only be reserved for the one true God. Scripture tells us that we should be holy but only gives the title “Holy” to the God-head.

Historical Protestants understood this well. It is sad that many in this modern day do not.

Perhaps they care to explain how the definition of a Protestant allows them to refer to the leader of the Church of Rome as Holiness.

They were Ecumenists in statement.

shick on April 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Theological point taken. But “Your Holiness” is an etiquette honorific also, like “Your Honor,” “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness” and (in older British usage addressed to a judge–here it comes) “Your Worship.” Polite usage is respectful and IMO doesn’t necessarily imply agreement. (The non-Catholic Christians who used it above seemed to imply that’s how they meant it too….like Americans calling the Queen ‘Your Majesty.’)

Anyway, sure thought it was nice of them to offer kind words and birthday wishes to another religious leader. Thanks again guys.

Being polite makes us not protestants?

baldilocks on April 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM

I thought they were being… gracious and polite Protestants. :)

inviolet on April 17, 2008 at 6:49 AM

I said nothing about politeness. They get a thumbs up for that. Notice how I bolded the word “Holiness” and said they were not protestant by definition.

Perhaps they care to explain how the definition of a Protestant allows them to refer to the leader of the Church of Rome as Holiness.

They were Ecumenists in statement.

To all those (whether people of faith or no faith), who have expressed kind words about a man of faith, thank you.

Nichevo on April 16, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Dittos to y’all. :) Thank you.

By definition you are not protestants.

shick on April 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM

I thought they were being… gracious and polite Protestants. :)

It’s worth reflecting that Benedict XVI is the latest in a continual line of ‘chief executives’ of a multinational corporation first founded during the early period of the Roman Empire. …. It sends a shiver down my spine the sheer awesomeness of it.

schiehallion on April 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Amen, brother! I got teary watching our Holy Father, thinking about he walks in the shoes of St. Peter … of a long unbroken line of heads of the Church which Christ founded. Some very great heads too – from St. Peter to the present day.