Pope: Other denominations not true churches

[rpp]

Smokey88, here is what you tell your Protestant friends.

“The news media distorted the story. They do not know what the Church teaches and they did not report truthfully or completely.”

Anyone with half a brain will realize that. But they probably already do.

You keep yelling about it. And it does no good.

If you want everyone to love you, you are going to be seriously disappointed.

 

[irenaeus1]

That’s funny, I wonder why only I have heard so many painful remarks from those ‘others’. And if it’s the media, wouldn’t you think you might consider that and possibly approach the whole subject … differently?

Now this is ridiculous. The Church is somehow suppose to control the MILLIONS of media outlets in order to ensure that the Church’s statement is not misinterpreted or skewed in any way. How else do you propose to globally communicate a teaching to the Church Universal? Are you aware of some sort of stealth methodology? Are you going to require that those who have been contacted sign a non-disclosure agreement? Even if they secretly contacted many of the dissenting theologians on this subject, do you sincerely believe that at least one of them would not have leaked it out to the press? Then imagine the reaction once exposed that the Church was trying to secretly sneak around outside public view with this teaching.

Now seriously, before you post anything else, please answer these questions.

 

[smokey888]

Alright, I’ll read the document. What number is it posted?

 

[irenaeus1]

I thought the Church was doing GREAT, then out of the blue came this Latin Mass and I thought, ok, that’s ok … then came the title from above (not my words) “Pope: Other denominations not true churches”!

Not the pope’s words either.

 

[brianwalden]

Alright, I’ll read the document. What number is it posted?

Here it is on the Vatican’s web site

I don’t think that has the commentary though, maybe someone else has that.

 

[rpp]

Smokey88

]I thought the Church was doing GREAT, then out of the blue came this Latin Mass and I thought, ok, that’s ok … then came the title from above (not my words) “Pope: Other denominations not true churches”! This doesn’t stike you 1955ish or more? Hey, this will bring them up to the table to talk won’t it. Our RCIA’s have always had people in them for the last x number of years. I don’t recall this many back in the 50’s or 60’s – so, lets step back in time and stir the pot, bring in a little Latin un-understandable magic, let’m know we’re number 1 while we’ve got law suits up and down every coast, oh yeah, this will do it. The Church is NOT always wrong, but yesterday was a very sad day in it’s history.

(emphasis mine)

I think your last sentence implies pretty strongly that you are closed minded about this and do not respect the Holy Father’s intention for doing this.

This last paragraph from above expresses so much hate I am simply shocked. The fact that you let the anti-Catholic news media tell you what the Church is teaching and wrangle your emotions is very disappointing.

Yet you are not willing to do anything about. It seems to me you enjoy criticizing the Church of Christ because of your unwillingness to seek out the honest truth so that you can correct these “protestant friends” you mention. You are doing harm to these people you describe as friends by what you are doing.

 

[rpp]

Here it is on the Vatican’s web site

I don’t think that has the commentary though, maybe someone else has that.

Here is the commentary.

 

[Nordar]

smokey888:
I don’t know about anyone else but your criticism of The Pope and The Church and the Venom in which you spew it is very disturbing for a Catholic!

 

[smokey888]

irenaeus1:
Now this is reidiculous. The Church is somehow suppose to control the MILLIONS of media outlets in order to ensure that the Church’s statement is not misinterpreted or skewed in any way. (1) How else do you propose to communicate a teaching to the Church Uuniversal? (2) Are you aware of some sort of stealth methodology? (3) Are you going to require that those who have been contacted sign a non-disclosure agreement? (4) Even if they secretly contacted many of the dissenting theologians on this subject, do you sincerely believe that at least one of them would not have leaked it out to the press? Then imagine the reaction once exposed that the Church was trying to secretly sneak around outside public view with this teaching.

Now seriously, before you post anything else, please answer these questions.

I don’t know how you all sort out postings to respond but I’ll answer your questions:

Number (1): It was already on the books, there was no need to bring it up to the millions.

(2) Yes, it’s called common sense.

**(3) **No

(4) At least he would have addressed those who needed this and not the millions. There were millions who didn’t need this – this is not a unifying subject; to tell John Doe that we have it and you don’t doesn’t win souls (period)

And I would have answered the press then, with apologizing about what happen during Luter’s time and the divide we have and welcoming those who wish to investigate more to explore the church etc. etc.

 

[rpp]

]

**Smokey88 **That’s funny, I wonder why only I have heard so many painful remarks from those ‘others’. And if it’s the media, wouldn’t you think you might consider that and possibly approach the whole subject … differently?

You are right. The media does report news of the Catholic Church differently. It is nearly always distorted and wrong. So many in the media hate the Church’s stand on abortion, gay marriage, sex outside of marriage, contraception and so many other moral issues. The liberal, self-appointed “elite” hate the Church and will do anything they can to discredit Her.

But not just the Church, but all of Christianity. And what better way thing to do than to instigate a fight between their most hated enemies?

So yes, they do approach the subject “differently”

 

[rpp]

I don’t know how you all sort out postings to respond but I’ll answer your questions:

Number (1): It was already on the books, there was no need to bring it up to the millions.

Everything the Catholic Church teaches has already been written down and said. Using your logic, priests should not say a homily because they are saying something that people already know.

In fact, people need to be reminded from time to time. And this had been a error of many since the Vatican II. There Catholics who have erroneously taught that the Church teaches Protestant denominations are equal to the Catholic Church. I know this from personal experience. So this is a corrective statement.

(2) Yes, it’s called common sense.

The news media is very anti-Catholic. Will those who hate you tell the truth?

**(3) **No

(4) At least he would have addressed those who needed this and not the millions. There were millions who didn’t need this – this is not a unifying subject; to tell John Doe that we have it and you don’t doesn’t win souls (period)

And I would have answered the press then, with apologizing about what happen during Luter’s time and the divide we have and welcoming those who wish to investigate more to explore the church etc. etc.

Church teachings cannot be secret. That is a heresy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094

I want to see what the document itself says.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Wow. So even Benedict XVI is President Bush’s fault.



Actually read the documents, please. The links have been posted in this thread. They have nothing to do with whom God loves more. The latest one, which I’ve yet to see the media report accurately, is little more than a extended dictionary entry. It answers a few questions, defines “Church” according to Catholic theology, and then explains the difference between a Church and a non-Church Christian community.

But I suppose jerking knees is easier than actual study.

– Mark L. Chance.

What the document called ? And, have you a link to it ? Thanks​

 

[Nordar]

www2.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/102940.html

Interesting, short cute article, “Buchanan lets Foxman have it over criticism of Vatican”

 

[brianwalden]

At least he would have addressed those who needed this and not the millions. There were millions who didn’t need this – this is not a unifying subject; to tell John Doe that we have it and you don’t doesn’t win souls (period)

Emphasis mine.

The very people who need this are the ones who were upset by it. The ones who didn’t need it just yawned when they read it. You seem to be saying the Catholic (aka universal) Church should only preach to the choir instead of the whole world.

Test Question (to see if you read the document): What is this “it” that the Catholic Church has that Protestants don’t. After you’ve identified this “it,” don’t you think that most Protestants will themselves admit that they don’t have “it” and that many of them got rid of “it” on purpose?

And I would have answered the press then, with apologizing about what happen during Luter’s time and the divide we have and welcoming those who wish to investigate more to explore the church etc. etc.

The Church has apologized for the sins its members have committed. This document has nothing to do with the reasons for the Protestant reformation. Why are you so hung up on Luther?

I disagree with your strategy of constant apologizing. This document was written in a straightforward and honest manner. It lays out Church teaching while speaking as positively as possible about our separated brothers and sisters. What more can you ask for? If only the denominations would release the same type of documents explaining their doctrine, we might be able to get somewhere.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why would I have to read something that I agree with. I know it’s right - it’s perfect, we’re number 1, no argument here.

If you agree with it, why are you bellyaching about it?

That’s funny, I wonder why only I have heard so many painful remarks from those ‘others’. And if it’s the media, wouldn’t you think you might consider that and possibly approach the whole subject … differently?

I do approach it differently – I read the document to see if it says what the media alleges. And when I find their reportage to be badly distorted, I respond to attacks on the Church by posting the actual document.

But of course there are always those who want to believe the worst about the Church – they won’t read it.

Really? What’s lacking about protestant friends not wanting to talk about it. Oh, and I should just jump in and say, “hey, if you would go look up the documents, it will all be better”; yeah right, that’s how life works hu, NOT!!

On this planet, if someone has an erroneous idea, we use evidence to refute it.

I thought the Church was doing GREAT, then out of the blue came this Latin Mass and I thought, ok, that’s ok …

“Out of the blue?” Anyone who hasn’t been asleep has seen the discussion about how His Holiness was going to allow the Latin Mass to be used again – that’s been kicked around for more than a year.

then came the title from above (not my words) “Pope: Other denominations not true churches”! This doesn’t stike you 1955ish or more?

No, it strikes me as bad, anti-catholic journalism. That’s why I went and read the original document.

Hey, this will bring them up to the table to talk won’t it. Our RCIA’s have always had people in them for the last x number of years. I don’t recall this many back in the 50’s or 60’s – so, lets step back in time and stir the pot, bring in a little Latin un-understandable magic, let’m know we’re number 1 while we’ve got law suits up and down every coast, oh yeah, this will do it. The Church is NOT always wrong, but yesterday was a very sad day in it’s history.

The sad day started when some Catholics decided to criticize without reading or understanding the document.

 

[rpp]

www2.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/102940.html

Interesting, short cute article, “Buchanan lets Foxman have it over criticism of Vatican”

This post deserves it’s own thread. Nordar, I do not want to steal your thunder. Would you post it please? Perhaps on the Motu Proprio room.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Alright, I’ll read the document. What number is it posted?

Right here:

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.

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 on 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

 

[KathleenElsie]

**Exactly, I couldn’t agree more – you’ve made my case! Then, why even bring it up AGAIN?!! Well the new priest at our parish said on Sunday and I quote “If you are not Catholic you can not yet take communion in a Catholic Church” He then went on to say that non-Catholics could come up for blessings till the Catholic Church allowed other Christians to partake in the eucrest with us. **Tell me, what possible good will come from this by bringing it up MORE? Maybe priests that are not following the rules will get the hint that things are not going to change.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.

The Pope did the right thing. He can’t help how the media plays it.