If expanding the use of the old latin mass was not enough proof that Benedict XVI thinks we are back in the 1400's, his new pronouncement should eliminate all doubt:LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope - a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.
The full news story can be found on MyWayNews: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070710/D8Q9O1FO0.html
2 comments:
When I first read the articles on bringing back the Tridentine Mass, I didn't see what the fuss was about. After all, after so long, I can't see many priests being in favour of it. Even if they were though, the parishioners would just go somewhere else, or stop going at all, if it was thrust on them and they didn't want it, wouldn't they?
However, in another article, I read that the Tridentine mass includes a prayer for the conversion of Jews. Now actually, I think there's a prayer similar to that read on Good Friday asking that "those who believe in God may come to see the light of Christ" or something.
Pope Benedict just strikes me as a generally disagreeable person. Even when he was first elected, I remember seeing one of the things on his naughty list being rock music. Plenty of adults dislike it. Don't you think it's a bit excessive to say ""Rock"... is the expression of the elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a sometimes cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship."? I just don't like him, and I don't think he's trying to be likeable.
He does have a point. Only Latin and Eastern Churches have an unbroken succession to the apostolic age and to the Apostles, which is the Doctrine of Processionism well understood and accepted as early as the New Testament itself. Read Acts 2:42. "They remained steadfast in the APOSTLES' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers." The Nicene Creed predates the Bible's authority by about 13 centuries, and it is an article of infallible Christian faith to believe "in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
Nothing about believing "scriptures," I'm afraid, much less the inspired writings being "literal and inerrant," which is complete nonsense, even by Catholicism's standards. They wrote the Book, they tell how it is to be read and understood.
None of which, by the way, justifies FAITH in any of it. But if I were to become a "Christian," only ONE Church is true (however schismatic the East from the West over pride), but the Church is ontologically, historically, and divinely PRIOR to all that follows, including the Creeds, the scriptures, the supreme papacy, etc. Without the Church there would be no Christianity. And if Jesus thought writing was so damned important, how come neither he nor the apostles wrote a single thing? He left those matters to his apostles and their successors as the college of apostles, with the bishop of Rome as first among equals (primus inter pares), but not "supreme," however Gestapo his Holiness tends to get.
Post a Comment