Pope: Other denominations not true churches

[chris_molter]

I posted something similar on the Eastern forums, but here’s my thoughts regarding the timing and reason behind this document:

I really think it has more to do with the SSPX types than the Eastern Orthodox. I think Pope Benedict is clarifying the “est” versus “subsistit” clause in Dominus Iesus because that particular change has been a major bone of contention between Catholics.

Progressive Catholics saw the change as admitting that the Catholic Church is “everywhere” and therefore, we don’t need prayers for converting Jews, Protestants, or Pagans. Of course, theywere thrilled, despite the fact that they were wrong.

Traditionalist Catholics read the “subsists” clause in the same way, but were angered and disgusted at what they saw as a betrayal of what the Church believes.

BXVI is clarifying why the change from “est” to “subsistit” was made and what it ACTUALLY means. This should probably anger the progressive types, and hopefully show the Traditionalists that the change did NOT abrogate the Church’s understanding of itself.

Perhaps some reactionary protestants or Orthodox will get all flustered and frothy, but really, there’s no reason for them to, since there’s nothing new that concerns them in this document.

Just my:twocents:

 

[Christophorus]

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not attacking the pope or his preaching. I simply want to understand why now? Today is not the time to say the Orthodox church is wounded, or that catholic liberals are in error. The timing is ALL wrong!

Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I am reading too much into this article (which by way is way beyond MSN now). I apologize for ruffling feathers that need not be ruffled. I will stop now. Thank you for your responses.

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum Bosun,

For some time Roman Catholics have generously reached out toward our Eastern Orthodox Brothers and Sisters as well as our Protestant Brothers and Sisters with great care and patients but such generosity appears to have been at the expense of our own ‘faith-claims’ as the Church of the Living God and eroded many Roman Catholics confidence and identity in themselves. Most fail to see the actual distinction between the Catholic Church and other communities of Christians whom for many reasons may not have access to the Fullness of the Faith.

Personally it is high time that the Vatican remind Catholics who we really.

God Bless.

 

[Qwikness]

You could question the timing but when would be a better time? During a holiday? after a disaster?
You could ask why. It comes on the heels of the return of the Latin Mass. I don’t know why but I’ll venture a guess: To strenghten the faithful. Ours is the One True Religion. When would a better time come to hear that. Good for us, not so good for the Non- Catholics. Probably never a good time for non catholics to hear that. If you don’t believe Catholicism is the One True Church, what are you Catholic for? This is not easy to say. It might start a fight. You’re telling someone else Catholics are better. It seems kind of pompous. Maybe, just maybe, the pope cares for others souls and wants them to find the One True Church for salvation. He does show backbone. That being said, I don’t think its that newsworthy. MSN is probably trying to make him look bad, and the Anti-John Paul II.

 

[Caesar]

This document wasnt from the Pope himself, but the Holy Office (oh fine- the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith… same thing). It isnt anything new- Vatican II said it, Paul VI said it, John Paul II said it, and now the Holy Office under Benedict XVI is restating the fact that the Church of Christ is indistiguishable from the Catholic Church, which holds the fullness of the true faith, and that protestant sects which cannot claim Apostolic Succession (hence no valid Holy Order or the Eucharist) cannot be called “Churches”.

But even so- God Bless our Most Holy Father, Benedict XVI!

 

[I_Believe]

This, I think, is another move by the Pope to make it clear that the Church recognizes problems that have risen out of the misinterpretation of VII.

Pope JPII issued an apology for errors and injustices that occured in the past. That surprised some, and was a sigh of relief for others.

Moving forward…
Now BXVI is moving to bolster the doctrine and tradition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Ecumenism is a way to engage in dialogue with other denominations, instead of ignoring them. Hopefully, the result will be conversion to the Church.

VII didn’t intend to give the impression that the Church now sees all Christian denominations as being as valid as the Church.

What I see in this Pope is a man who is going to leave behind a Church with it’s faithful reverting to the devotion seen before the crazy changes in society during the 50’s and 60’s. Perhaps that is what happened with VII.
The timing.

Anyhow, this is just my opinion on it all. This Pope is turning heads. And he’s got us looking in the right direction

 

[edwest2]

I agree. The world often says, “there are many paths to God,” or “I’ll give in if we can compromize.” Jesus established the Catholic (which means Universal) Church on Peter. Many denominations came out of disagreements.

So while other Churches may have a lot of the truth or part of the truth, the Catholic Church is the original, true Church, with all of the Truth. This is not “we’re better than you,” but “this is the one, true Church.”

And yes, the world likes to sow confusion and distort what it doesn’t like.

God bless,
Ed

 

[cathgal]

I’d like to hear your views on this news article.

msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094

It’s old news to some learned Catholics, but the rest, they need to hear it from time to time, and it’s been waaay overdue. It’ll do them some good!

Truth cannot be hidden !

 

[fix]

Ok, time to discuss infallibility in this matter. This statement on a previous document was not ex cathedra, neither was the restatement. A bishop’s council (VII) did say that salvation was possible outside the RCC. Since ex cathedra was not invoked, then the VII interpretation stands as by some interpretations, that would still be “infallible” until proven otherwise and no recent meeting of bishops have pulled back from that so far.

Please provide some references.

 

[cathgal]

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not attacking the pope or his preaching. I simply want to understand why now? Today is not the time to say the Orthodox church is wounded, or that catholic liberals are in error. The timing is ALL wrong!

Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I am reading too much into this article (which by way is way beyond MSN now). I apologize for ruffling feathers that need not be ruffled. I will stop now. Thank you for your responses.

“Why now” ? Why NOT now??

Is there such a perfect timing in this sinful world ?

 

[Trelow]

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not attacking the pope or his preaching. I simply want to understand why now?

It’s a decision made above our pay grade. Don’t question it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The docment in question can be read here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…tiones_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council[1]. Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”[3]. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention[4].

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”[7].

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

(Continued in next post)

 

[vern_humphrey]

(Continued from previous post)

Third Question: Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”[11].

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Despite all the sky-is-falling-and-its-the-fault-of-that-mean-'ol-Catholic-Church rhetoric, for the purposes of addressing the articles that have appeared on this document, it the five questions can be boiled down into three:

1. Did Vatican II change Catholic doctrine? No.
2. Does the Catholic Church recognize the validity of Orthodox orders and sacrements? Yes – but the union between Catholics and Orthodox is not perfect.
3. Does the Catholic Church consider the Apostolic Succession to be a critical issue in determining the validity of orders and sacrements? Yes. It always has.

 

[rpp]

Many on this thread have already stated the trueness and correctness of the document.

Meanwhile, others have expressed consternation at the timing. This consternation is shared by both the secular news media sources and Catholic news services. And me.

But I think what this may be is the first in a series of Papal clarifications on the various interpretations of many of the more “controversial” (“problematic”) passages in the Vatican II documents.

I think that establishing the role and identity of the Church is a logical first step in issuing these Papal clarifications of interpretation.

I hope to see more clarifications on issues such as salvation outside of the Church, the importance of sacred art, the proper role of music in the liturgy and similar common sources of dissent.

 

[mercygate]

Many on this thread have already stated the trueness and correctness of the document.

Meanwhile, others have expressed consternation at the timing. This consternation is shared by both the secular news media sources and Catholic news services. And me.

But I think what this may be is the first in a series of Papal clarifications on the various interpretations of many of the more “controversial” (“problematic”) passages in the Vatican II documents.

I think that establishing the role and identity of the Church is a logical first step in issuing these Papal clarifications of interpretation.

I hope to see more clarifications on issues such as salvation outside of the Church, the importance of sacred art, the proper role of music in the liturgy and similar common sources of dissent.

When he was elected, he said he took the name “Benedict” partly because the last Pope Benedict had a short term, and his would be also. I see him as taking care of important business before somebody comes in behind him, who might not share his convictions or his sense of urgency in these matters.

 

[rpp]

When he was elected, he said he took the name “Benedict” partly because the last Pope Benedict had a short term, and his would be also. I see him as taking care of important business before somebody comes in behind him, who might not share his convictions or his sense of urgency in these matters.

I hope you are both wrong and right. Right about taking care of important business quickly and wrong about a short Papacy.

God, we ask You bless our Holy Father. We thank You for his leadership to date. Grant him wisdom, good health and a long reign. Amen

 

[Riley259]

I’d like to hear your views on this news article.

msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094

Nothing new but does anyone have a link to the new document?

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, Vern, for posting that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rpp]

Nothing new but does anyone have a link to the new document?

The document is titled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.” Here is the link.

Read and enjoy!

 

[francesco920]

I’d like to hear your views on this news article.

msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094

MSN…fair and balanced and extremely knowledgeable about Catholic issues as usual.

Yes, what a surprise :yawn:, Catholics believe in ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that protestant communities are not churches.

I’m :yawn: so :yawn: in :yawn: shock.



What I mean to say is…

DEO GRATIAS!
VIVA IL PAPA!

 

[KathleenElsie]

This is my point exactly! There is no need to for the pope to bring this up now! There is no issue at hand that dictates the need for this. I have read the popes actual words, I understand and agree with him. This misquoted article is what’s bothering me. The Vatican must have known they were going to get misquoted. There is NO need for the Pope to reiterate this belief. If there is, I don’t see it. Someone please guide me towards this illusive need.

In my opinion it is being brought to the forefront because of the MP. Non-Catholics have made some comments on the prayers and the intentions of the Pope for making the TLM more widely available. This is just another way to let people know that it is the business of the Catholic Church and not of the world.