|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were 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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope. (Or else we Baptists need to brush up on our Latin...)
[ 23. October 2007, 12:06: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The CDF document simply states the most obvious reading of the already existing documents IMNSHO. Orthodox Churches are churches properly speaking, because they have the sacraments (in particular holy orders and the Eucharist). But as churches they are defective to at least the extent that they are not in communion with the Holy See, which is a basic principle of Church. (See Fourth Question) The communities of the Reformation do not have the sacraments (in particular holy orders and the Eucharist), so they are not churches properly speaking. (See Fifth Question) This does not stop them from being significant and important instruments of Christ's salvation. (See Second & Third Question)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Only fear and insecurity can cause this to be continually re-emphasized. I mean, what's the point?
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
As IngoB said, nothing new - Lumen Gentium said much the same thing and that was over 40 years ago.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This does not stop them from being significant and important instruments of Christ's salvation. (See Second & Third Question)
But what about the paragraph further down?
quote:
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.”
So while the Pope did not officially declare the Protestants to be "unsaved", he would make such a declaration if he could get away with it (i.e. he believes it, even though he's not allowed to say it)?
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Allow me to indulge in the ultimate of Ship snobbery: quoting oneself.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Of course, the pope is free to say whatever he wants. That doesn't make it right or true, though.
I think that many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic Church, despite having the same name, is not the church that existed pre-Reformation times, but rather an offspring created during the Counter-Reformation in order to specifically distance themselves from the Reformation Protestant offspring. Their claim to be the one true church is no more or less valid than that of any Reformation era church. They just inherited the nice property and kept the name.
If the Reformation had not occurred, I think the continuation of the original RCC would look profoundly different from the RCC of today.
I also suspect the Orthodox would have something to say about the Petrine ministry.
What really bothers me about this is that Roman Catholic Church still claims interest in ecumenism. It is time for them to just face facts and say that they are only interested in ecumenism on their own terms with no compromise, no negotiations, only other churches becoming Roman Catholic en masse as Roman Catholicism is now with no deviation.
This is not in the spirit of Vatican 2, no matter what the Vatican says. This is a bit more in the spirit of Protestant discrimination that existed pre-Vatican 2.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope. (Or else we Baptists need to brush up on our Latin...)
On the contrary, I think real ecumenism has to begin from an honest statement of positions.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, of course the Pope would say that anyone who calls themself a Christian falls under his allegedly divine jurisdiction! I mean...we can't have the Pope promoting apostasy, now, can we? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, of course the Pope would say that anyone who calls themself a Christian falls under his allegedly divine jurisdiction!
Sorry, he said that where? He said that Christians not under his jurisdiction are lacking a divine gift. As far as I'm aware he wasn't claiming jurisdiction over the United Methodists.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
What really bothers me about this is that Roman Catholic Church still claims interest in ecumenism. It is time for them to just face facts and say that they are only interested in ecumenism on their own terms with no compromise, no negotiations, only other churches becoming Roman Catholic en masse as Roman Catholicism is now with no deviation.
Rubbish. Go and read the document before sounding off in such a manner.
As to the alternative form of ecumenism: you accuse the Catholic Church wanting it on her own terms whilst you promote a model of ecumenism on...your own terms. So bears do shit in the woods.
quote:
This is not in the spirit of Vatican 2, no matter what the Vatican says. This is a bit more in the spirit of Protestant discrimination that existed pre-Vatican 2.
Since when did it belong to Lutherans to tell the Catholic Church what the "spirit of Vatican 2" is. Frankly, I'd rather suggest that Joseph Ratzinger might be a better judge of that than your good self - him having been there, having been a peritus at the Council and having been a Bishop in the post-Vatican 2 environment of the Catholic Church for 30 years. Its called the hermeneutic of continuity, my friend: the need to understand the teaching of the Church today in continuity with her teaching over the last 2000 years, not merely since year zero (1962).
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
IngoB
you have to be careful. I am in a denomination where some ministers have valid orders according to Rome though the vast majority don't. In other words some of our ministers were ordained Moravian . Not all Protestant orders are invalid.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Lacking something. As most of us are this side of the Kingdom of God.
The thing that annoys me about this is the way people seem to think that it is only Rome which thinks other churches have got things wrong. United Methodists presumably believe that there are things which are sub-ideal about the Roman Catholic Church. Rome seems to get it in the neck for being open about its views.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were 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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope. (Or else we Baptists need to brush up on our Latin...)
Is the Pope's position any different from that of a Christian involved in inter-faith dialogue who accepts that people of other faiths have a relationship with God, yet still believes that Christianity is the fullest expession of that relationship? On one level it annoys me that the Pope thinks my church isn't a proper church, but I can still see the logic of it within a Catholic framework...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Only fear and insecurity can cause this to be continually re-emphasized. I mean, what's the point?
Like all such clarifications by the CDF, this is basically an internal call to order. It is possible to (falsely) see an incoherence in the previously published documents, and then to use this as an excuse to re-interpret and ignore. This could further either an ultra-lib agenda ("all denominations are basically equal, the RCC claims little more than a historic place of honor") or a rad-trad agenda ("all other denominations count for nothing, since only the RCC is the Church"). The CDF is clarifying that neither take it licit, presumably because enough people were noisily pushing them for a long time.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
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.”
So while the Pope did not officially declare the Protestants to be "unsaved", he would make such a declaration if he could get away with it (i.e. he believes it, even though he's not allowed to say it)?
This would be the very same man who as Cardinal Ratzinger pushed through the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Lutheran World Federation against considerable resistance in the Catholic Church? It helps to actually read the documents, instead of relying on reporters fabricating news:
quote:
Dominus Iesus:
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
... In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
---
(61) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.
(62) Cf. ibid., 3.
(63) Cf. ibid., 22.
...
(65) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 14.
(66) Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
Jengie Jon, if you wish to claim the same status as the Orthodox for some of your denomination's ministers, that's fine by me - in the sense that I'm truly and totally uninterested. This sort of game frankly has infinitesimal significance to anyone but the players themselves.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Father Trisagion, I have no doubt that you and Pope Benedict know more about Vatican 2 than me. I was only giving the perspective of one Lutheran, just as you were giving the Roman Catholic perspective.
I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return? ('Nothing' is a valid answer for either one, but where does that leave us in terms of ecumenism?) It seems to me that in any healthy relationship, a little give and take is required. Communication is the key, and although I am not as well-versed in Vatican communications as you are, I can't recall any statements qualifying what would be necessary for closer relations. Could you point me to such a thing?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Well, by my logic it would make sense for any non-Catholic to see there would be something that they don't agree with in the Catholic Church, if you agreed with everything that the Catholic Church did/taught then surely you'd be a Catholic!
Catholics don't tend to focus on differences with ecumenism, we focus on the similarities! But at the same time the Catholic Church does acknowledge that there are differences in belief!
The Catholic Church believes and teaches that it is the church founded by Jesus Christ, through the Apostles. Apostle Peter was the first Pope, Christ's rock who instituted the Papacy. The other churches broke away from the Catholic Church and therefore broke away from the Church founded by Jesus Christ!
*shrugs*
The Reformation Protestant Churches exist because they felt the Catholic Church was corrupt, in our eyes they left the Church founded by Jesus Christ, but with good intentions and they were very sincere Christians and Christ-Followers, that has not changed!
Ecumenism is not about agreeing with every single possible doctrine, dogma and teaching that the other churches say, it's not about merging doctrines, it's about accepting the similarities, cooperation and growing ever closer in proclaiming the common truth that Jesus Christ is Lord.
One day God willing there will be unity and we must and should not stop progressing ever closer to become United together as Christians, but there are differences and we cannot pretend they do not exist! They are there and we just have to acknowledge that as reality.
Max - Who feels that he's probably as ecumenical as you can get and worships at non-Catholic places just as often as he worships at Catholic places
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Bishop of Rome has no right to say that any other community of Christians is not a church.
Where the Spirit of Jesus is, there is Church.
The man is displaying some very strange ideas that will only widen the gap between Protestants and Catholics.
If the Catholic Church ceased to exist at breakfast time tomorrow the Body of Christ would carry on regardless. We do not need Rome or it's bishop to say whether we can be a church or not.
This statement shows the papacy for what it is - a man trying to be Christ on earth, another saviour.
He is not.
And, BTW, we Protestants are not 'separated brethren' as JPII styled us. We are not separated from anything, we are joined to Christ.
I have no desire to become adhered to the Roman religion thank you.
[ 10. July 2007, 21:42: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Most Moved Mover
Shipmate
# 11673
|
Posted
As a liberal Baptist I think there are lots of problems with official RC doctrine and practice, just as there are problems with Baptist doctrine and practice (except that we're less centralised and have less 'official' anything I think).
The asymmetry results because I think that RCs are part of the church and they don't think the same about us. Except that maybe that asymmetry is only on the surface. Underneath it all, I think their ecclesiology stinks and is fundamentally un-Christ like so perhaps I'd be hypocritical to have a go at them for what they believe.
Even so, it proclaiming that one's church is the one true church does irritate me. I'm not sure where that leaves me though ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
www.HOPEHIV.org
Posts: 169 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?
Tolle lege, tolle lege, ...
quote:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church" writes:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." (UR 3 § 1.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Allow me to indulge in the ultimate of Ship snobbery: quoting oneself.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Of course, the pope is free to say whatever he wants. That doesn't make it right or true, though.
I think that many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic Church, despite having the same name, is not the church that existed pre-Reformation times, but rather an offspring created during the Counter-Reformation in order to specifically distance themselves from the Reformation Protestant offspring. Their claim to be the one true church is no more or less valid than that of any Reformation era church. They just inherited the nice property and kept the name.
If the Reformation had not occurred, I think the continuation of the original RCC would look profoundly different from the RCC of today.
I also suspect the Orthodox would have something to say about the Petrine ministry.
This is not in the spirit of Vatican 2, no matter what the Vatican says. This is a bit more in the spirit of Protestant discrimination that existed pre-Vatican 2.
Although this saddens me to an extent as an Orthodox, the phrase "Spirit of Vat II" has been so abused over the past 40 years as to be meaningless now.
Yes, I wish the phrasing of the letter had more of the charity of Lumen Gentium about it.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Lacking something. As most of us are this side of the Kingdom of God.
The thing that annoys me about this is the way people seem to think that it is only Rome which thinks other churches have got things wrong.
The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, certainly has something not quite nice to say about just about every other denomination in the book.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
I don't have a problem with that at all, except probably what he actually said and what he meant by it.
Is there any Biblical precedent for the use of "church" to cover a denomination?
Denominations (RCC included) consist of true churches (and presumably some false ones), but are not themselves churches unless they are very small denominations indeed. All Christians are part of the true Church, which isn't co-extensive with the group that acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Father Trisagion, I have no doubt that you and Pope Benedict know more about Vatican 2 than me. I was only giving the perspective of one Lutheran, just as you were giving the Roman Catholic perspective.
I'm pleased to say Martin L, that as a deacon I'm not properly called Father - except by my 14 year old son when he's being sarcastic!
With all due respect, you weren't "only giving a perspective" you were making a clear statement about whether this latest directive is in accordance with "the spirit of Vatican 2". You qualified the statement in no way: just a bald assertion. Hence the dispeptic reply on my part.
quote:
I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return? ('Nothing' is a valid answer for either one, but where does that leave us in terms of ecumenism?) It seems to me that in any healthy relationship, a little give and take is required. Communication is the key, and although I am not as well-versed in Vatican communications as you are, I can't recall any statements qualifying what would be necessary for closer relations. Could you point me to such a thing?
I think a short trawl through a few documents would do: start with Vatican II's Lumen Gentium and then Unitatis Redintegratio . If you then moved on to Dominus Iesus and finished with this latest instruction linked to above, you'd have a pretty good idea of the official state of the question from the Catholic perspective.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bishop of Rome has no right to say that any other community of Christians is not a church.
Where the Spirit of Jesus is, there is Church.
The man is displaying some very strange ideas that will only widen the gap between Protestants and Catholics.
Mudfrog, honest question: did you ever stop and think that maybe it's reactions like this one that serve to widen this gap much more than the statements themselves?
quote:
This statement shows the papacy for what it is - a man trying to be Christ on earth, another saviour.
He is not.
Oh boy, let's not utter this summoning conjure!
I know that you know that nobody believes this, so it is deliberate antagonisation on your part to suggest it. How does that serve to bridge the gap you were talking about earlier?
quote:
And, BTW, we Protestants are not 'separated brethren' as JPII styled us. We are not separated from anything, we are joined to Christ.
I have no desire to become adhered to the Roman religion thank you.
Your first two sentences blatantly contradict your third, here. If you are not separated from the RCC, than you are adhered [sic] to them. If you have no desire to become adhered to them, then you are separated from them.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the next pope is also going to be Catholic.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Yes, I wish the phrasing of the letter had more of the charity of Lumen Gentium about it.
Whilst that might be desirable, we need to remember that what we're talking about is a document issued, inter alia to clarify what the term subsistit in from Lumen Gentium actually means. I've sat through enough Ecclesiology lectures is enough purportedly Catholic institues of higher education to know that the takes on what this meant were many and various, ranging from the hopelessly universalist to the vehemently sectarian. When this is taken into account and read without a determination to be offended, there's charity and generosity in equal measure with the juridical.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return? ('Nothing' is a valid answer for either one, but where does that leave us in terms of ecumenism?) It seems to me that in any healthy relationship, a little give and take is required. Communication is the key, and although I am not as well-versed in Vatican communications as you are, I can't recall any statements qualifying what would be necessary for closer relations. Could you point me to such a thing?
For the practicalities, look at the document Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism. Scroll down to paragraph 40 and following for some insight into which Catholic officials deal how with ecumenism, and to paragraph 56 and following concerning the question of ecumenical formation. Paragraph 102 and following will tell you about a range of shared activities. Etc.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
I like that, Max.
It seems worth recognising that this is territory where it's extremely easy to offend good people. I remember being rather hurt when told by a Baptist minister that I wasn't a member of a Christian church and so I can understand how this stuff reads as pretty intolerant and unpleasant.
I'd much rather the Vatican expressed itself in terms that less alienated those it aspires to reunify. For that matter, I doubt I agree with the substance either. But the document isn't so bad. If you accept that the RC sense of "Church" is (roughly) "the eucharistic body descended from the apostles under the authority of the successors of St. Peter" then it's not surprising that there are fairly few qualifiers. And, clutching at straws, it's good to see the CDF using the term "churches" (small c) in answer to question 2. There is a recognition of the existence and value of Christian communities - not just individuals - outwith the RC/Orthodox Church. quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The thing that annoys me about this is the way people seem to think that it is only Rome which thinks other churches have got things wrong. United Methodists presumably believe that there are things which are sub-ideal about the Roman Catholic Church. Rome seems to get it in the neck for being open about its views.
But some denominations go much further in denying the validity of other branches of Christianity than others. It's an ugly trait in some Protestant churches and I don't like it in the RCC either.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
One of the chief areas in which Peter was given authority was in the matter of forgiveness. If the biblical account is totally reliable, he was given the right to absolve or to withhold absolution, was he not? [The reason I say "if the biblical account is totally reliable" is that I find it inconsistent, indeed almiost ludicrous, in the light of Jesus' other sayings on forgiveness, that he should give to a coward and a bully the right not to forgive.]
The way in which Peter chose to administer this right is shown in his treatment of Ananias and Sapphira. Now, AFAIK, the successors of Peter who were not complete bastards - i.e, the vast majority of them, chose to follow Jesus' example rather than Peter' (I've not heard of a single Pope who deliberately scared anyone to death, or denied them a chance to repent). So I fail to see why they cling to the Apostolic Succession as an inarguable justification for their authority.
[ 10. July 2007, 22:46: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
I like that, Max.
Phew... you don't know how nervous when I was posting that!
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
The asymmetry results because I think that RCs are part of the church and they don't think the same about us.
Well hang on. There is an important difference in what you mean by 'the church'. You, I would guess, think that 'the church' consists of all believers in Christ, in fellowship with one another. Rome believes that you are both a follower of Christ and in fellowship with other Christians. Rome, in denying that Baptist churches are qua churches part of the Church, is denying that they have bishops and priests, set apart sacramentally to administer the seven sacraments and preside at the eucharistic sacrifice. You, presumably, do not believe that Baptists have these either.
So Rome, in your terms, believes you are part of the church. You, in Rome's terms, deny that Baptist churches are part of the Church. I fail to see the problem.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Lacking something. As most of us are this side of the Kingdom of God.
The thing that annoys me about this is the way people seem to think that it is only Rome which thinks other churches have got things wrong. United Methodists presumably believe that there are things which are sub-ideal about the Roman Catholic Church. Rome seems to get it in the neck for being open about its views.
It all seems a perfectly sensible and reasonable position by the Pope to me. Catholics and Protestants disagree on various subjects to different degrees and on different levels of importance. Obviously one or other (or maybe both) are wrong, so if we're being honest and consistent about our beliefs, then of course we think there's something less than ideal about what the other lot thinks.
That's the nature of disagreement, and that's where discussion can begin. I think I'm right, you think you're right, we think that the other of us is wrong; let's talk.
I'd agree with Custard, and presumably disagree with the Pope, on my understanding of what the Church is and how one belongs to it, but that's just something else to file under the list of things to disagree and talk about.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.
What "reconciliation" exactly are you looking for? I sometimes think people use "ecumenism" as a short hand for "corporate reunion."
I don't want to be a Roman Catholic. If I did, I would go and become one (I understand they are very welcoming to newcomers). If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave. After all
quote:
originally posted by Max
Well, by my logic it would make sense for any non-Catholic to see there would be something that they don't agree with in the Catholic Church, if you agreed with everything that the Catholic Church did/taught then surely you'd be a Catholic!
Exactly.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Mirrizin wrote, "So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?"
Chopped liver? No, you're Christians and members of the universal catholic church the same as the rest of us. (Assuming you are Christians...)
The RCC theologians has an annoying tendency to use common words, but then use their own meanings for those words.
Having the pope in charge is "a" gift, not "the" gift. (I suspect this might be a more important gift to him than it is to you.)
Remember the pope is a scholar and legalist. Precise definitions are what he does for fun. I wouldn't worry about it to much.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Martin L wrote, "I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return?"
I think the answer to both parts is "understanding".
To me, ecumenism takes place within the people of the church. Few RCs have a deep technical understanding of RC theology, so expecting some sort of technical discussion from every RC seems forlorn. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave.
Why? How would it change your church, which presumably you like?
The Episcopal Church is "in communion" with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. I am Episcopalian. I don't want to be Lutheran (although I do find it somewhat attractive). I see no reason to leave the Episcopal Church.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Mirrizin wrote, "So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?"
With respect, correct. And that is where Ecumenism starts - people know where each other stands - only then can true ecumenical discussion commence.
I think more RC's know more about their theology than you give them credit for. It doesn't have to be something taught, it has to be something lived in the mass etc.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I don't want to be a Roman Catholic. If I did, I would go and become one (I understand they are very welcoming to newcomers). If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave. After all
Yes - I can vouch for that, the Catholic Church are lovely to newcomers! And if you ever change your mind, give me a shout! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Max
[ 10. July 2007, 23:21: Message edited by: Max. ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The Episcopal Church is "in communion" with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
"In communion with" is not the same as "corporate union" or "merger".
I should, therefore, ask what "ecumenism" means (because it seems to mean different things to different people) and if it doesn't mean "corporate merger" why the Pope's latest is particularly problematic?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
Max - glad it's of some comfort, but I doubt my views on this subject have much in the way of either coherence or support! quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
That's the nature of disagreement, and that's where discussion can begin. I think I'm right, you think you're right, we think that the other of us is wrong; let's talk.
It's a shame for some of us that, hundreds of years after the original disagreements, people put so much energy into defining so precisely quite why it is that they're right and the other lot is wrong, while the few people seriously talking are regarded as either eccentric enthusiasts or shadily heterodox.
Divine Outlaw Dwarf - it's an important point about the differing definitions of (C/)church. However, even accepting that, I still read RC doctrine as ascribing a less certain and fruitful status within the Body of Christ to Protestant churches than most mainstream Protestant denominations would to their counterparts. And, if I understand, the Vatican view is that churches outside the Church are only valuable insofar as their teachings happen to coincide with the RCC. Whereas Protestant thinking about truth arising from a more individual relationship with God or scripture is more more open to the possibility of insight, value and elements of truth being found outside and independent of one's particular church. Does this make any sense?
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I think more RC's know more about their theology than you give them credit for.
And I think I know less about my theology than you give me credit for
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB turns dyspeptic:
Jengie Jon, if you wish to claim the same status as the Orthodox for some of your denomination's ministers, that's fine by me - in the sense that I'm truly and totally uninterested. This sort of game frankly has infinitesimal significance to anyone but the players themselves.
IngoB, I'm looking for the charity in this, and I'm not finding it. Hell, I'd be satisfied with finding a speck of utility, but I'm not finding any of that either.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Pope John XXIII anyone?
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the next pope is also going to be Catholic.
Well, then that reconciliaion thing is going to have to wait until the next Polish pope...
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fisher
It's a shame for some of us that, hundreds of years after the original disagreements, people put so much energy into defining so precisely quite why it is that they're right and the other lot is wrong, while the few people seriously talking are regarded as either eccentric enthusiasts or shadily heterodox.
Very true. Enough with the sundering, more with the togethering. The Holy Catholic Church has been sundered enough over the past 2000 years.
My reaction to the Pope's position?
So what else is new? It isn't something we didn't know before. The Orthodox disagree over the Petrine Ministry, and all the other details pale in comparison. We Prots took a long, hard look at the episcopate and Real Presence, and disagree on these points. Interal RC logic holds that disagreement = not RC = not fully part of the Faith. It's been said for centuries in more or less emphatic ways.
MartinL was right. Many Protestants (including myself) hold that the current Roman Catholic Churhch is as divergent from the Western Rite Church that we left as we ourselves are. We zigged, they zagged. All the Kings horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the next pope is also going to be Catholic.
Well, then that reconciliaion thing is going to have to wait until the next Polish pope...
Eh? Do you think John-Paul II [memory eternal!] was any less Catholic in his thought? He may've been involved in ecumenical endeavours(*), but he would've surely had the same beliefs.
Give me a direct talker like Benedict anyday: we need charity, of course, but nothing is served if we cannot be open and honest. And, as it has been said, it's not all that surprising.
Ian,
defective Byzantine Christian [has a nice ring to it I think! ]
(*)from what I hear he was, I did not pay that much attention to Church stuff, not being a church-goer, for most of his Pontificate...
[ 11. July 2007, 04:01: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
If there's a place to discuss important points like, "How many angel's asses can fit in a pinstriped camaro?", it's here in purgatory.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But let's not forget that being a Christian is all about loving God and one another. What divides us is insignificant compared to what unites us.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Having received some good education over the last couple of years, thanks to Catholic shipmates, I actually found this document constructive and clarifying. It helped that I'd read two of the key prior statements because of discussions in previous threads. Trisagion's "hermeneutic of continuity" and IngoB's "internal call to order" points also help to put the actual words in a proper context.
Taken in isolation, I can see how the document might stir some folks up - or be used by some elements of the media to stir up mischief. But of course, because of continuity, it really doesn't make sense to read such documents in isolation. Catholicism doesn't work that way.
I say to loads of folks that if you really want to understand nonconformity or evangelicalism (rather than subject us to cartoon-type characterisations) you'll need to do a bit of work. The same applies to Catholicism. Understanding may not bridge gaps or heal all differences, but it can help increase goodwill and reduce rancour. Particularly if you feel that is a Christian imperative anyway.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the next pope is also going to be Catholic.
And the last one.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Do you think John-Paul II [memory eternal!] was any less Catholic in his thought? He may've been involved in ecumenical endeavours(*), but he would've surely had the same beliefs.
actually, if anything, JP-II was more conservative on a whole range of issues, and in the early part of his pontificate it was the erstwhile Ratzinger that held him back from saying half of what he really wanted to say.
[rant]
As for the ecumenical stuff specifically, none of this has changed in 40 years. Benedict isn't saying anything his predecessors haven't been saying since Vatican II. But, then, the theology behind it is, in any case, slightly more subtle than the face-value stuff that the papers delight in reporting.
And, moreover, although they talk a good game, the RCC never ever move on ecumenism -- not really -- not in any substantial way -- because, frankly, with well over half the 1 billion Christians in the world, they don't need us. They have all the negotiating power, and (given that) are usually far more gracious than they actually have to be -- but never actually get any further than that.
The real RCC position on ecumenism is: "It's never too late for y'all to come back to us."
Attention, all of you who aren't RCC -- all you need to do is ask yourself this: which of your denominations is one inch closer to reunion than it was 40 years ago at the close of Vatican II? I don't mean did you read all the lovely agreeable language in the latest (e.g.) ARCIC document. What I mean is, have the RCC and your Church actually *done* anything about it? Answer: No. And they're not going to
[sub-rant]
Which is what always pisses me off about Anglicans who can't countenance Anglican Proposal for Change No. X because of what it's likely to do to our prospects of reunion with Rome. News flash: we don't have any, so we might as well let the traditional three-legged stool decide our doctrinal positions for us, rather than another Church.
[/sub-rant]
What boggles my mind is
a) how Shippies and intelligent folk keep getting worked up over these things every time the RCC comes out with another one (which they do all the time, and never saying anything new).
and
b) how incredibly stupid and thick and dense the Popes are in periodically releasing these kinds of statements; they're a terrible exercise in PR and they wind everybody up for the sake of no new information.
Rook never gave me my Junior Hosting Badge, but if he had, I'd lock and kill every Roman Catholic ecumenism thread so fast you'd think you were in a US military prison in Iraq.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[/rant]
[ 11. July 2007, 07:13: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
