Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday that the Roman Catholic Church has the indisputable right and duty to convert anyone to Christianity.
The Church’s central mission is evangelism, the pope firmly told a Vatican body responsible for encouraging Catholic missionary activity, according to Agence France-Presse.
Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, called on the conversion of “all nations,” Benedict said,” and this commission remains “an obligatory mandate for the entire Church and for every believer in Christ.”
"This apostolic commitment is both a duty and an inalienable right, the very expression of religious freedom with its moral, social and political dimensions," the pontiff said.
Benedict’s address comes two months after he baptized a prominent Muslim author into the Catholic Church during an Easter service that was broadcasted worldwide. The baptism of Egyptian-born, Italian writer Magni Allam infuriated some Muslims who saw the act as an assault on Islam.
But the Vatican had said no hostility was intended in baptizing Allam during a broadcasted Easter ceremony, according to The Associated Press.
While Benedict may assert the right of Christians to convert non-believers to the faith, he has also been ramping up efforts to reach out to moderate Muslims for interfaith dialogues.
The Vatican will host a meeting in Rome with leading Muslim religious leaders and scholars in November to encourage more dialogue between Catholics and Muslims.
Many believe the pope’s increased effort on holding interfaith conversations resulted from Muslim anger towards him after he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who linked Islam with violence in a 2006 speech at Germany’s Regensburg University.
That same year, Benedict traveled to Turkey, visiting Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque, in an effort to show tolerance of other religions and to demonstrate a spirit of cooperation for peace in light of the rise in Muslim-Christian clashes worldwide.
But Benedict, like his predecessors, remains enthusiastic about promoting missionary zeal among Catholics.
The Vatican published in December a doctrinal note reaffirming the mission of all Catholics to pursue conversion of non-Catholics, including other Christian denominations.
Comments
Im sure Jesus was happy to see his "true church" saving so many souls with violent force during the crusadeds. After all they were led by an infalible leader who was the true vicar of christ. Jesus must have been happy to see protestants be burned at the stake by order of the pope. The gates of hell wont prevail against the church? These acts of the church certainly weren't evil in any way were they?
thelordismymight,
For being such a true follower of Christ you sure know how to be humble in your posts. I wonder if Jesus would tell another person to "eat it", or call people "pathetic", or "filthy"...
Online, your comments on May 31 are an outrage, an outright lie! I checked my versions of my Catholic Bibles, and these verses are there! DO NOT keep spreading your lies.
Online-
Bull. Just bull. That is not true. The manuscripts are 90% the same anyway. Just listen... since the people were writing the Byzantine texts did not have access to the TR (only to the Alexandrian Texts) then there is NO WAY that theirs would be closer to the TR... ha... just shut up, you are wrong.
Tliml,
The 99% of “Greek manuscripts” of the New Testament support Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and the KJV.
Jerome’s own statements speak for themselves as does the bible passages that expose the corrupt Alexandrian Text.
Oh by the way... who converted the Gnostics back to the faith? Was it you? Nuuuuuuuuu to hard for a bunch of filthy protties, right? "No I would like to keep my seat, thank you very much, I believe and now I get to go to heaven without standing up... but of course i can complain... that is fine... I can also point fingers at religions that DO work and DO serve the Lord... I'm staying here'' We converted them. Who converted the arians? Oh that's right it was you- wait... a minute... they converted about a thousand of YOU didn't they?! Yea... that's right... so technically the Byzantine text has a way way way better chance of being corrupted by Arians than the Alexandrian text has of being corrupted by Gnostics.
k... wow... umm... wow... First off.. what is the 99%? 99% of christian religions? Yea... since we are one UNIFIED religion then of course we'd have less of a percentage than all you pathetic dividers that use the same bible. However if you counted in terms of people... you would find that 75% agree with us :D In terms of bible scholars (we have more and better scholars than you) it would be about 90% that agree with us. I would also like to point this out. Recent joint study by the Colleges of America group shows that Catholic colleges in ALL cases offer a better bible study than do the Protestant colleges... :P Quality is better than quantity, but we happen to have both on you protties. Always have, always will. Also... I would like you to prove that those things that are in YOUR editions and texts were in the TR. Since the oldest dating texts were alexandrian, we definitely have the upper-hand here, buddy. You can't win here. How do you know that the Arians did not add in "Through his blood" it is something they would do. And online... you are supported by the Latin verions? REALLY? Well guess what... :)... we are supported by the GREEK versions! EAT IT BABY! You like it? You like it? Smell it. Now eat it.
"It is well-known that Erasmus used byzantine texts..."
Prove it. It is well known? You seem to use stuff like that ALOT. "History bears witness to the fact" "It is well-known" "It is almost certain" get some hard evidence. Just because you say it doesn't make it true :) And it is hard to imagine how he could use byzantine scripts because the byzantine scripts weren't even AROUND yet... hmmmmm... something seems... fishy.
As for Jerome. Nothing Latin translates into ''add anything'' and at the time it WAS considered outrageous to translate it, so that could EASILY be what he meant. They did brand him as falsifier because at the time Greek was considered the pure language, the holy language, the language of God.
msnchris70,
“Trying to have a intellectual debate with Online is a kin to discussing how Jesus is the Messiah to an orthodox Jew, it won't happen.”
It is odd that you speak of having an intellectual debate when you failed to reply to a couple of my last posts – “speaking of the law of non-contradiction” and “the many customs and practices that the “Roman” Catholic Church inherited from pagan Rome.”
Refusing to respond is indeed a poor way of having an intellectual debate.
Matthew 23:14 (KJV) – WOE TO THE SCRIBES [THOSE WHO HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES] -
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – OMITS this verse!
RSV (Catholic) – OMITS this verse!
Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) – THE DEITY OF CHRIST - “…God, who created all things by JESUS CHRIST:”
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “God the Creator of everything.”
RSV (Catholic) – “God who created all things;”
John 5:29 (KJV) – SECOND CHANCE/PURGATORY – “…and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of DAMNATION.”
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “and those who did evil will come forth to judgment.”
RSV (Catholic) – “and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”
The “phrase” Textus Receptus originated in Elzevirs’ second edition, published in 1633, which contains the words: “Therefore you have a text now received by all, in which we give no alteration or corruption.” Thus: the Received Text (that is, RECEIVED from ANTIQUITY)!
The question therefore simply is: which text-type, generally speaking, has been recognized and propagated by the church from earliest times? The unequivocal answer is: The Textus Receptus!
Today there are over 5200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. KJV “Critics” ignore the fact that over 99% agree with Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and the KJV. Less than one percent (.008) agree with the odd omissions and changes in the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLB, CEV, NCV, NAB, and NJB.
Here are a “FEW” of many EXAMPLES:
Colossians 1:14 (KJV) – THE BLOOD ATONEMENT - “In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – Colossian 1:14 – “and in him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.”
RSV (Catholic Edition) – Colossians 1:14 – “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
1Corinthians 5:7 (KJV) – THE SINFULNES OF MAN - “…For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed FOR US.”
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “For our Passover has been sacrificed, that is, Christ;”
RSV (Catholic) – “For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.”
1Timothy 3:16 (KJV) – THE DIETY OF CHRIST - “…GOD was manifest in the flesh…”
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “He was made visible in the flesh,”
RSV (Catholic) – “He was manifest in the flesh,”
Tliml,
“Many flaws with what you said The Textus Receptus was not known as the Byzantine Text!”
Proof that the Byzantine text is the genuine and preserved text:
It is supported by the early versions: the Syriac (or Aramaic) and Latin versions; the Peshitta and the Gothic. Some of these go back to the mid-second century. It is well known that Erasmus used representative Byzantine manuscripts for the publication of his edition of the Greek New Testament. Robert Estienne (Latinized as Stephanus) after him, as well as all the others (Theodore Beza, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir) used the same text. The church universal had been using that text throughout the centuries. That was the New Testament and no other!
What Bibles had Erasmus and early Christians meditated upon? The extended amount of time Erasmus’ spent in the “Roman libraries,” and the other libraries of Italy on his several tours there, would have exposed him to the text of the Old “Itala (Latin) Bible – (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 86). Since Erasmus was the world’s leading authority on Latin, he could easily read the Old “Itala,” and its offshoot, Italian, which was spoken in Italy during his tenure there. The Old Itala Bible, dating back to the time of the apostles, matches Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and the King James Bible.
Jerome corrupted this pure Old “Itala” Bible in the fourth century. He admitted in his preface,
“You [Pope Damascus] urge me to revise the Old Latin, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of Scriptures which are now scattered THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. . . Is there not a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume in hand . . . call me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make changes. . .” (See Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum . . . Latine, vol. 1, pp. 1-4 or any critical edition of the corrupt Latin Vulgate).
In Jerome’s “Prologue to the Catholic Epistles,” – he admits that Christians “have pronounced to have branded me a falsifier and a corruptor of the Sacred Scriptures” – (Lit. “qui me flasarium corruptoremque sacrarum pronunciant Scripturarum.”
Wilderness-
Nothing wrong with asking someone other than God for help. If you think we should ONLY ask God for help and NOBODY else then I expect you to live by that. No doctors, police, fire-fighters, para-medics, lawyers, anything... k? :D
“In dangers, in distress, in perplexities, think on Mary, call on Mary.” [Sermons Of Saint Bernard On Advent And Christmas Including The Famous Treatise On The Incarnation Called “Missus Est.”]
When in distress, should we think on Mary and call upon Mary? What does the word of God say? “In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me” (Ps 120:1).
No matter how one tries to justify it, Bernard was dabbling in and teaching some dangerous falsities. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Co 5:6).
Trying to have a intellectual debate with Online is a kin to discussing how Jesus is the Messiah to an orthodox Jew, it won't happen.
The KJV is not based on the TR and I would like to see Online conjecture his way through it to find proof. ONline will quote from people who truly have no credulity in the area he is quoting from. Online will try to provide proof much like the Discovery Channel does through manipulation of history and Scripture. Online loves to redefine history.
Put it this way; Online hates the fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, he hates the fact that we decided what went into the New Testament, he hates the fact that we defined the Trinity, he hates the fact we defined the two natures of Jesus, he hates the fact that throughout history you will find the Catholic Church but you won't find his particular sect. He probably hates Easter and Christmas since the CAtholic Church set those days to celebrate our Lord.
Online is embittered with the fact that He loves Jesus so much, yet attacks the Church that Christ founded. One day Jesus will say to him like Jesus said to Saul,"Online ONline why do you persecute me?" I still would bet that ONline will be saved because he does love Christ and from what I read puts all his trust in Christ. This is a great thing and we should all do that everday. Online will always be at a crossroad since many of his beliefs about the Church, the Bible, worship and faith bare little resemblance to the early Christians. Why? Well because the early Christian were Catholics and he isn't.
Online4HIm-
Many flaws with what you said The Textus Receptus was not known as the Byzantine Text! It was known as the Textus Receptus! The Byzantine Text/Majority Text/Syrian Text was a BIPRODUCT of the Textus Receptus that came about AFTER the Alexandrian texts began surfacing! And as for your book it is widely known that his words were abridged, taken into context, paraphrased, edited, translated, and re-translated MANY MANY times. A good rule of thumb is that after 2500 years you cannot trust someone's quote. And if you want to play hard-ball and argue the differ, I can easily bring up many many more quotes confirming that the Byzantine Text was a version of the Textus Receptus that was corrupted by Arians
... this is taken DIRECTLY from wikipedia
The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian) is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of biblical manuscripts. The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. In later manuscripts (from the 9th century onwards) the Byzantine text-type becomes far more common, and that remains the standard text in the Greek Orthodox church; and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era. Most modern New Testament translations, however, now use an Eclectic Greek text that is closest to the Alexandrian text-type.
So... if we use the Alexandrian text... we are right... because it says HERE... that the Byzantine text came AFTER the Alexandrian text! Also... You claim we were dominated by Gnostics... there is absolutely no proof of this. Many Alexandrian scholars claim that Byzantine texts were corrupted by Arians. There is actually more proof to this than there is to your claim. However, no scholars can actually find any proof to EITHER story... so stop stating your theories as though they are fact, take a good slap to the face, and wake up.
As for the Revision Revised: Burgon was well known among bible scholars to be far outspoken, and very anti-alexandrian. His theories were far-fetched and mainly based on speculation and inference. Although he received awards (for poetry, not theology) his many theories were historically laughable and overall rejected by scholars. Nice try online.
And Martin Luther wrote the Vulgate :P And history does not point to any connection between Jerome and origen. The only little tiny bit that might point to it is a smudge on one of Jerome's letters to a friend. The letter only vagely mentions his bible work and it only talks about it in the context of progress.
The KJV is not based on the Textus Receptus, it is based on the Byzantine Text which as just as if not more corrupt as the Alexandrian Text, which was around before the Byzantine Text.