Pope: Other denominations not true churches

[smokey888]

But that’s just it. They are not at the table in the first place. Non-Catholic Christians are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and they cannot share in Holy Communion with the Catholic Church. JPII reminded us of this in his encyclical on the Church and the Eucharist. They cannot share with us and we cannot share with them because we are not in reality in full communion with one another. He also stated that Catholics do not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Protestant service. And this coming from a very ecumenical pope. These are not new teachings, but are reaffirmations and reiterations of what the Church has always taught because of certain teachers and theologians within the Church promoting erroneous and ambiguous views.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more – you’ve made my case! Then, why even bring it up AGAIN?!! Tell me, what possible good will come from this by bringing it up MORE? Especially when you compare any good to the harm it will cause. Please note too, that nothing was said about how out-of-control Catholics were during the time of Martin Luther when they broke away originally. There’s a movie out there (wish I knew the name of it) about what all Luther saw (from his perspective, not ours) and it wasn’t pretty at all; but note, nothing was said about this in all his proofs. It was just very poorly done, I don’t care 'how “RIGHT” we are, it was poorly thought out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more – you’ve made my case! Then, why even bring it up AGAIN?!! Tell me, what possible good will come from this by bringing it up MORE? Especially when you compare any good to the harm it will cause. Please note too, that nothing was said about how out-of-control Catholics were during the time of Martin Luther when they broke away originally. There’s a movie out there (wish I knew the name of it) about what all Luther saw (from his perspective, not ours) and it wasn’t pretty at all; but note, nothing was said about this in all his proofs. It was just very poorly done, I don’t care 'how “RIGHT” we are, it was poorly thought out.

Read the document!! It tells you why it was produced.

 

[fix]

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more – you’ve made my case! Then, why even bring it up AGAIN?!! Tell me, what possible good will come from this by bringing it up MORE? Especially when you compare any good to the harm it will cause. Please note too, that nothing was said about how out-of-control Catholics were during the time of Martin Luther when they broke away originally. There’s a movie out there (wish I knew the name of it) about what all Luther saw (from his perspective, not ours) and it wasn’t pretty at all; but note, nothing was said about this in all his proofs. It was just very poorly done, I don’t care 'how “RIGHT” we are, it was poorly thought out.

I could not disagree more. The probelm with this issue, well one of many, is that too many take offense when they have no reason to be offended. Is there such a thing as illegitimate suffering? I think there is.

 

[Nordar]

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more – you’ve made my case! Then, why even bring it up AGAIN?!! Tell me, what possible good will come from this by bringing it up MORE? Especially when you compare any good to the harm it will cause. Please note too, that nothing was said about how out-of-control Catholics were during the time of Martin Luther when they broke away originally. There’s a movie out there (wish I knew the name of it) about what all Luther saw (from his perspective, not ours) and it wasn’t pretty at all; but note, nothing was said about this in all his proofs. It was just very poorly done, I don’t care 'how “RIGHT” we are, it was poorly thought out.

Have you read the document?

 

[vern_humphrey]

For those who keep asking why *Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church *was published (as if the title were not self-explanatory), here’s the introduction to the document:

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 ecclesiology. 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.
(My emphasis.)

In other words, people have been asking questions that need to be answered. Is the Church to ignore the questions of the faithful? Does it have a duty to ignore errors and misinterpretations?

 

[rpp]

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more – you’ve made my case! Then, why even bring it up AGAIN?!! Tell me, what possible good will come from this by bringing it up MORE? Especially when you compare any good to the harm it will cause. Please note too, that nothing was said about how out-of-control Catholics were during the time of Martin Luther when they broke away originally. There’s a movie out there (wish I knew the name of it) about what all Luther saw (from his perspective, not ours) and it wasn’t pretty at all; but note, nothing was said about this in all his proofs. It was just very poorly done, I don’t care 'how “RIGHT” we are, it was poorly thought out.

Why are all your posts in bold? It seems like shouting.

 

[smokey888]

What’s interesting is that this has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, but whenever it is reiterated, many people get upset because it doesn’t sound politically correct. …

This also reinforces what JPII and B16 have always said; if you interpret Vatican II as a break from Catholic tradition, then you are misinterpreting Vatican II. (Emp. added)

In Christ,
Irenaeus

The above would have been a much much better way of addressing it. (see bold above) It didn’t need to be repeated, we have sins too, i.e. Martin Luther tried very hard to bring them to light.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Does this (or the Catechism) mean that they are not true Christians?

They/we/all of us who are disciples of Jesus Christ, and are baptised, are members of Catholic Church. Some are in varying degrees of communion with the Church. It’s why we refer to people coming into the Church as “coming home” to Mother Church. It is not for man on earth, (even the Vicar of Christ), to judge a man’s soul. As to whether someone may achieve salvation without being in full communion is something only God will decide. But the various Christian “Churches” who are not in full commion with Rome and the seat of Peter are not the Church established by Christ. They are indeed only Ecclesiastical communities. I’m probably not explaining this properly, but I believe that is the gist of it. This does not speak to the salvation of the individuals caught up in such communities, but rather the institutions themselves. There is only one Church.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[smokey888]

Why are all your posts in bold? It seems like shouting.

They read better, it’s only yelling when CAP’d

 

[Nordar]

In response to Vern’s claim that his statement was discrediting my argument, not the Bible…it certainly didn’t come across that way as I think others thought you meant the Bible as well. However, I would still like some backup on how/when/by whom this argument was discredited. I’m not sure how this passage could be misunderstood…it is pretty straight forward and repetitious of its claim.

On a side note, your passion is evident. However, it seems you are taking challenges to your beliefs very defensively (evident in your eye-rolling and bleeping). I only seek the truth. I know it is easy sometimes to become defensive when our core beliefs are challenged (trust me…being a lone Protestant in a Catholic forum and having married into a Catholic family is this X100). It would be beneficial to you argument if you honed your passion into constructive comments instead of destructive remarks (which destroy your integrity and the integrity of the church you claim to represent).
Just a thought…

Thank you to those who have been courteous in your responses. I think I will now dive into an apologetics forum…

No I perfectly understood that Vern did not mean The Bible!

 

[Adonis33]

I hate to repeat this, but again, I am baffled at the people who are upset about this. especially Catholics.

 

[HJProtestant]

Vern, obviously somebody thought you meant the Bible because they took shots at you… I was not the one who said those mean things about you and I don’t condone them…you are still acting defensively.

Secondly, my response to childofmary1143 was to disprove her statement that there is no salvation outside of the church because Paul says in Galatians says time and time again that it is through faith (in Christ not the church) that we are saved. I didn’t “imply” anything…I was referring to a very important passage in God’s Word.

I am not “advancing” anything that Paul did not mean in that scripture!

I would love to continue this conversation…but first I would like to find the responses you are talking about that I must have missed and research them. Also, I have to tend to the kids so I say “good bye” for now…

 

[fix]

I hate to repeat this, but again, I am baffled at the people who are upset about this. especially Catholics.

It is astonishing, well, I wish it were astonishing.

 

[irenaeus1]

I read this in the paper the other day. It saddened me.

That you were saddened demonstrates clearly why this teaching needed to be reaffirmed. The teaching is nothing new, but there have been many from within that have muddied the waters and have caused confusion.

Does the Pope want to cause divisions between Christians?

The Pope has not caused division between Christians. Protestantism has managed to do this amongst themselves quite well.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[smokey888]

Have you read the document?

I won’t use bold any longer as some think it’s yelling.

No, I have not read the document(s). But take a look at the title above: “Other denominations not true churches”. Do you think that will cause the great majority to seek out these documents? Just a yes or no please.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here are the five questions and the answers:

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]

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]

(continued in next post)

 

[Ahimsa]

I hate to repeat this, but again, I am baffled at the people who are upset about this. especially Catholics.

I’m baffled that people are baffled.

 

[fix]

I won’t use bold any longer as some think it’s yelling.

No, I have not read the document(s). But take a look at the title above: “Other denominations not true churches”. Do you think that will cause the great majority to seek out these documents? Just a yes or no please.

But, that was a news headline.

 

[vern_humphrey]

(Continued from previous post.)

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].

Now, a fair reading of this text would reduce the questions to 3 (insofar as they address the issue raised by the title of this thread)

1. Did Vatican II change the doctrine of the Catholic Church? No.
2. Does the Catholic Church recognize as valid the sacraments and orders of the Orthodox Churches? Yes, although we are not in perfect communion with them.
3. Does the Catholic Church consider the Apostolic Succession to be essential to valid orders and sacraments? Yes. We always have.

 

[irenaeus1]

Thank you.

I apologize. I thought he was stating something factual from what you had stated and from another thread, so I was not going to search for it.

In Christ,
Irenaeus