Pope Benny is on a Roll: "Other Christians not true churches"

Fresh from upseting the Jewish community by approving a prayer calling for their conversion , Pope Benny has turned his benevolent attention to so-called Christians who misguidedly think they go to church every Sunday. Not so, according to Ben; if they’re Protestant, those buildings they go to, and organizations they belong to, aren’t really churches: Pope: Other Christians not true churches

And those poor misguided Orthodox? well, since they have apostolic succession, they are at least churches - but because of their stubborn failure to appreciate that Benny is their leader, they’re really wounded churches:

So, does this mean a resurgence of “outside the Church there is no salvation” as Roman Catholic doctrine, not in the broad ecumenical sense, but in a more narrow sense that non-Roman Catholics are hell-bound?

So - Benny’s checked off Judaism, Protestants, and Orthodox from his “To Do” list, all in less than a week. Wonder what’s up next? Why Muslims are infidels? Hindus are demon-worshippers? I can’t wait for his next pronouncement.

Errr… I know this may shock you terribly, but this has been Church doctrine for centuries (referring to Protestantism) and over a millenium (Orthodox).

What’s the fuss about? This has been the doctrine of the Catholic Church for over a thousand years, I think. Ever try to take communio at a Catholic Church if you aren’t Catholic? The Pope is merely restating the Church’s position.

It’s amazing how many people get shocked when the Pope states adherence to Catholic doctrine.

Note to SDMB, the Catholic church is NOT A LIBERAL MULTICULTURALIST institution. It thinks it is the only real and true faith.

Just to clarify: as the responses (especially tomndebb’s) in that thread show, summarising the motu proprio *Summorum Pontificum * as “the Pope has approved a prayer for the conversion of the Jews” is just plain wrong.

Yeh, but didn’t they roll that back at the Vatican II council?

I recall an anecdote: A cardinal protested Pope John XXIII’s decision to invite Protestant observers to Vatican II.

CARDINAL: Holy Father, they are heretics!

POPE: Do not say “heretics,” my son. Say, “separated brethren.”

CARDINAL: They are in league with the Devil!

POPE: Do not say “Devil,” my son. Say, “separated angel.”

See also Anne Neville’s post #63 in this Pit thread.

:eek: Shocking!

In other news: Dog claims to enjoy eating meat!


But does the Pope, in fact, shit in the woods?

(He does. I have pictures.)

Dunno…but the Bear is definitely NOT a Catholic…


It’s a freakin’ club. It gets to make its own rules. If you’re not in the club, well… you’re not in the club. Much ado about nothing.

It’s a freakin’ big club and its poor relations with other self-identified Christian denominations have been occasion for many wars, and for less destructive tensions, such as Protestant suspicion of JFK’s candidacy for the presidency, etc. I was hoping the world had moved beyond all that.

Psst… Catholicism isn’t just Unitarianism with fancier rituals.

The Church actually has core beliefs and core teachings that aren’t negotiable.

Does that mean you have to accept the Church’s teachings? Of course not- you’re perfectly free to reject them. But no one who calls himself a Catholic has the option of saying, “Oh well, all religions are really the same, and who are we to think ours is any better than the others?”

There’s nothing new in any of this and honestly, I think some of what gets said by a lot of the Evangelical groups about the RCC and LDS Churches is a lot more risible than this. At least he’s not accusing Protestants of being “antichrists,” or claiming they’re not really Christian.

Of course they’re negotiable. They have changed many times over the centuries. That’s the practical (as distinct from the spiritual) advantage of basing doctrine on the pronouncements of living priests and bishops rather than unalterable Scripture.

Last I checked, JFK won the presidency. And religious wars between Protestants and Catholics are a think of the past. We have moved beyond that. Unless, of course, you want to make a big deal about doctrinal issues like this that really haven’t changed except in the minds of the beholder.

Tell the Irish that.

Pffft. That was a war about economics and political power with religion as a proxy. They weren’t fighting over who had the correct interpretation of the Gospels. They were fighting over which ethnic group (the native Irish or the "immigrants Scotts) were going to run things.

Which makes it no less a real fight. Just like the conflict between the Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims in Iraq. It is now a matter of ethnic identity, not religious doctrine, but that makes it no less real.

So, you’ve changed your position then, and you now agree with me? The fighting in Ireland was not about religious doctrine. That’s all I was saying.