Pope: Other Christians not true churches

Pope: Other Christians not true churches

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

Vatican says other Christian churches "wounded"

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

A 16-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict once headed, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in Protestant denominations.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document "Dominus Iesus" issued by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, said the Church wanted to stress this point because some Catholic theologians continued to misunderstand it.

Ratzinger was elected Pope in April 2005. The document is his second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition in four days, following a decree on Saturday restoring the old Latin Mass alongside the modern liturgy.

The document said dialogue with other Christians remained "one of the priorities of the Catholic Church."

But Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Protestant umbrella group Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), said the new Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.

Huber said the new pronouncement repeated the "offensive statements" of the 2000 document and was a "missed opportunity" to patch up relations with Protestants.

"The hope for a change in the ecumenical situation has been pushed further away by the document published today," he said.

A statement from The French Protestant Federation said that while the document was an internal pronouncement of the Catholic Church, it would have "external repercussions."

Bishop Friedrich Weber of Germany's United Evangelical Lutheran Church said the pronouncement "makes me sad," adding that the official Vatican teaching did not reflect the grass roots reality of inter-denominational dialogue in many communities.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

The document, issued by Benedict's successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, aimed to correct what it called "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, like Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation," a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans.

Father Augustine Di Noia, Under-Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia told Vatican radio.

can you believe this guy said that?  That Roman Catholic church is the only true church?

Then what's the one I am going(which is PCA)? Satan's church?

From chick.com, I know Catholic church teach this. I just feel sad that those who received catholic teaching are being deceived without knowing what the gospel is really about. Of course it is worse for those who teach this idea. This is NOT about St. Paul or he being "the head of the church" and somehow pass this role to the next "pope"

That's why I feel weird everytime when teachers ask the students who is the head of the church, and most of the students would say "pope". It is supposed to be Christ.

The only advice I could give is to just read the bible and leave out the religion part of it. This is why my parents attend a non-dominational church.

kmcheng: In the Catholic Faith: The Head of their Church is the Pope. So there is a difference. The Pope is not the head of Christian (non-deminational) church's.

The question could be worded another way: Who is the head of the Catholic Church? Big difference. Anyway, hope this helps.

Blaze_of_Fire said:

The only advice I could give is to just read the bible and leave out the religion part of it. This is why my parents attend a non-dominational church.

kmcheng: In the Catholic Faith: The Head of their Church is the Pope. So there is a difference. The Pope is not the head of Christian (non-deminational) church's.

The question could be worded another way: Who is the head of the Catholic Church? Big difference. Anyway, hope this helps.

I tell people that I am not a religious person, that I have a relationship with God, by Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and that it comes from faith.

I am first of all a follower of Christ, as best I can, not a "Christian" as the world uses the term. And secondly I belong to the Methodist Church for now. With my name being John Wesley, I tell people I can't help but be a Methodist ( ha, ha ).

We worship a living saviour, not a person who is still dead. That I think is the difference between spiritual faith and religion.

Since we have to be so careful now about not exercising our free speech in here when it comes to religion, I had a funny experience lately.

A friend of mine from Toronto is Catholic.  Her husband is Protestant.  They came to visit and her husband was quoting something from the Bible.  He asked her opinion and she snapped "George, I'm Catholic.  You know we don't know anything about the Bible!"

John07: Good to hear from you!

Yes, I agree you hit the nail on the head. Nicely said. Again, the only thing I could say is read the bibile, leave religon out of it. Short and simple.

Melinda in TN said:

Since we have to be so careful now about not exercising our free speech in here when it comes to religion, I had a funny experience lately.

A friend of mine from Toronto is Catholic.  Her husband is Protestant.  They came to visit and her husband was quoting something from the Bible.  He asked her opinion and she snapped "George, I'm Catholic.  You know we don't know anything about the Bible!"

 

 

Melinda in TN said:

Since we have to be so careful now about not exercising our free speech in here when it comes to religion, I had a funny experience lately.

A friend of mine from Toronto is Catholic.  Her husband is Protestant.  They came to visit and her husband was quoting something from the Bible.  He asked her opinion and she snapped "George, I'm Catholic.  You know we don't know anything about the Bible!"

I don't know if I should say her response is funny, or sad. If they know nothing about bible, and doesn't plan to learn, then what in the world does she believe in?? The pope? Sadly, many people are afraid to offend to catholic that no one is willing to speak out the truth.

The term "religion" and "christian" doesn't necessarily mean bad, just that these term are so overused that they are more and more become just a label. This means religion doesn't have to mean anything, and christian doesn't have to mean that person has any relationship with Jesus, sadly.

Also, "religion" means a set of beliefs. Therefore, people want to admit or not, evolution is a religion, NOT science, also with Atheism.