Sunday, July 15, 2007

Pope is Catholic, but is not the antichrist

PROTESTANTS can't properly call themselves churches, while orthodox churches can but are "wounded", the Vatican says in a document released yesterday.

It was the second time in a week Pope Benedict XVI has moved to correct what he calls erroneous interpretations of the 1960s reforming Vatican Council.

Last Friday he issued a document revitalising the latin mass, sidelined after the council allowed masses in different languages.

The new document, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the Pope used to head, reaffirms traditional teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church — though "elements of truth" are found in separated churches.

It says Orthodox churches are wounded because they are not in communion with the Pope, while protestant churches have more serious deficiencies, making it "difficult to see how the title of 'church' could possibly be attributed to them".

The document says the Catholic Church is still interested in ecumenical dialogue, but some protestant groups doubted that.

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches said: "It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the Reformed family and other families of the church."

Anglican bishop Robert Forsyth, of Sydney — the city where Catholics and Anglicans are regarded as strict — said Anglicans were not offended.

''It means the Pope is a Catholic, actually," Bishop Forsyth said.

"Of course, they would think that — we think they're a bit dodgy, too, but we've come a long way from saying the Pope is the antichrist.

"In Sydney, we get on well (with the Catholics) because we both accept there are irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't stop us loving each other."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sotto Voce