Benedict on "untrue" churches

One of the last Catholic homilies I heard before leaving my old parish in anger was a deacon thanking God from the pulpit that we Catholics aren't like those awful fundamentalist Protestants, who insist Jesus is the only way to God.

This essay in FIRST THINGS posits an interesting approach to the subject: Jesus and the World Religions

Let's see:

Door Number 1: Deacon: "Thank God we aren't like those fundamentalist Protestants who insist that Jesus is the only way to God."

Door Number 2: Jesus Christ: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

I'll take Door Number 2.

But goodness, did the pope really need to say that it is difficult to see how you could even call Protestant bodies churches? That seems to me to be unnecessary, provocative and most unfortunate.

You answered this a few moments before:

Of course Benedict believes the fullness of the faith is denied to...the Protestant churches. He's the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church! If he believed anything else, he would be unfaithful to Church teaching and tradition.

Alierakieron,

The short answer re: marriage is no, but the marriage thing is incredibly complex because Catholics consider it a sacrament: go to http://catholidoxies.blogspot.com/2007/07/prodigal-bloggers-situation-ii.html to see some of the issues involved. Catholics hold Baptism to be universally valid, no matter who administers it, so long as it is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As far as this clarification, it's interesting B16 released the MP to reach out (in part) to SSPXers and the like and then this document, which is not friendly to prots; seems like he's reaching right.

And that's a good thing. I mean, Prots (and I am one currently) need to shut up and deal with it. If we want unity so bad, maybe we need to repent of certain things and simply join the Catholic fold. The problem is most prots want 'liberal' unity with Rome -- that is, they want Rome to become protestant.

I don't think B16's comment about prot churches not really being such is harsh. It's what it is.

I suspect the comments by the pope about Protestant churches are motivated by the average. Many mainline Protestant churches and groups no longer reflect historic Christianity of any sort. They may have somewhat 70 years ago.

Some may say that much of the Catholic Church today is the same. And perhaps so, but the Catholic church has a pope to to deal with many things even though it seems that the actions of the papacy can be slow.

The old 16th century split has not healed and is still in the psyche of just about every living Christian but much of the theological fussing today is not between different denominations and groups but cuts across churches and groups.

Rod,

Read the document issued by the Vatican, not the intepretation of the press (awful again, as usual).

Here are some excerpts from the document you won't read anywhere in the MSM:

"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."

"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".

Here's what it says fully about the Orthodox churches:

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].

- end quote -

Incidentally, the phrase "wound" does not appear in the document most recently issued, but in the commentary accompanying that document. There, the footnoted reference to the phrase "wound" clearly indicates that it is from a 1993 pronouncement.

Of course, the MSM will also not report on this statement from the commentary which appears just a little down from "wound:"

"In saying this, however, it must be remembered that these said ecclesial Communities, by virtue of the diverse elements of sanctification and truth really present in them, undoubtedly possess as such an ecclesial character and consequently a salvific significance."

The reporting on this reminds me of those people who try to start fights by passing along to others only part of what was said and in a distorted form.

Also, the Catholic Church does recognize the baptism of most non-Catholic Christians as valid.

Meh - Will any of this make a difference in a thousand years?

What exactly was the Pope's point in releasing this document at this particular time? All of this was covered in Dominus Iesus a few years back, and it raised somewhat of a fuss then because of its labeling of Protestant denominations as non-churches. It seems counterproductive for the Pope to restate all of this.

I suspect Msgr. Bernard Fellay received an expedited copy of this as well.

But goodness, did the pope really need to say that it is difficult to see how you could even call Protestant bodies churches? That seems to me to be unnecessary, provocative and most unfortunate.

I think this is unfair. The document clearly explains how the Catholic Church defines "Church"- see Question 4, which got posted above. There is the one Church, but it is also accurate to speak of local, particular Churches- i.e. Diocesan Churches- which the Orthodox certainly have and are. I believe this is a very normal way for Orthodox Christians to look at ecclesiology.

One of past few times I attended a Catholic mass (I'm a protestant) the Priest turned a pleasant homily on baptism into a vitriolic refutation of the notion of any other "sects" being real churches. Following the service, those members of the congregation who I was with immediately turned to me and apologized that I had to here it.

I can understand any given religion or denomination asserting that it alone has the correct interpretation, and I can understand the views on apostolic succession (even if a disagree that it justifies the papacy). But I think the first commenter hits the nail on the head as does Matthew 18:20: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Excuse me, Anon (just above) was me.

I'm a former Catholic who followed a nun's advice that you cannot choose which of the church's teachings is true or false for yourself. You don't get to decide and once you do you're no longer Catholic. Once I had a list of things which I believe contradict scriptures about the length of my arm going, I figured I was no longer Catholic and moved on to more evangelical churches.

My concern about this is that it wasn't all that long ago that many protestants thought that Catholics weren't even Christians. A proclamation such as this seems to me to court the danger of re-opening that chasm again. Perhaps not from Catholics towards protestants, but the other way around. Evertime I see one of these sorts of things from the Catholic church, although I am quite familiar with the rational behind it, dozens of scriptures start popping into my head which directly refute the claims of the church.

To the reasonably well versed protestant, these sort of proclamations from the church make it look like the scism isn't between those who are in apostolic sucession (an unbiblical concept, btw) and those who aren't, but between those who give primacy to scriptures and those who give primacy to tradition for teaching. Since scriptures are central to the protestant understanding of what it is to be Christian, calling this seeming dicotomy to mind seems to me to run the risk of planting and fertilizing the idea in the mind of protestant that Catholics aren't true Christians. (I do not hold this myself - I just wish the church were better at admiting errors and more rigorous in it's approach to the biblical rather than traditional foundations of its teachings.)

My take is that this document is being released, like the recent permission on the Latin Mass, to satisfy those on the right who believe that Vatican II somehow changed the teachings of the church. One of the bugbears among those who make this accusation is Vatican II's use of the formula that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church was some sort of climbdown from traditional doctrine that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. The purpose of the document, again, is to explain that "subsists" represents a more fuller expansion of the meaning, not a retraction.
Similarly, many trads see ecumenism as this awful retreat from the true teaching, so it elaborates (again!) how the church sees the other churches.
This is all inside-baseball stuff for non-Catholics, but it is not really aimed at them. It is aimed at those Catholics who think Vatican II was some sort of departure from true Catholic teaching.

I'm sure there'll be lots of howls over this, but you won't get them from me. Of course Benedict believes the fullness of the faith is denied to my church, the Orthodox Church, and to a greater degree the Protestant churches. He's the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church!

No kidding. I'm Mormon, I think my church is right and all the other Christian churches, although possessing and teaching important truths, also err in important ways, and it doesn't bother me when other faiths make exclusive truth claims either. Christ didn't say, "be mushy one to another." I seem to remember something about a sharp sword that divided asunder.

That said, theological differences, while important, are less important than the command to treat all men and women as my neighbors and to love my neighbor as myself. But acknowledging those differences, and even acting upon them, is not contrary to Christian love. Sometimes its even necessary to Christian love. The sailor shipwrecked in a dark and stormy sea, who has found some little island of truth and salvation, will shout to his shipmates that they should swim to the island from the sandbars they're on, if he loves them.

Alicia,

As you may or may not be aware, Catholics are obligated under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass on Sundays and certain feast days. So while it's great that your cousins are all hip to the most recent fashions, if they go to your church in lieu of their Church, they have failed to satisfy their obligation. On a special occassion like your father preaching maybe it is appropriate for them to go to both. But it's uncharitable for Prots who are aware of this obligation to view the failure of Catholics to attend their services as some sort of rejection of family unity. Practical Catholics view the Sunday obligation very seriously and should not be placed in the position of choosing family over their obligation. So in the future you should give them directions to the nearest Catholic church and enjoy their company when Mass is over.

To the reasonably well versed protestant, these sort of proclamations from the church make it look like the scism isn't between those who are in apostolic sucession (an unbiblical concept, btw) and those who aren't, but between those who give primacy to scriptures and those who give primacy to tradition for teaching.

Unbiblical eh? Acts 1 seems like a good start.

Regarding marriage:
Those who have been initiated into the Catholic Church and have not formally defected are bound by the Sacrament of Marriage, i.e. only through the Church can they be married.
Those who have otherwise wed are bound by the natural law.

Will any of this matter in 1000 years?
Why not? It mattered 1000 years ago.

1000 years ago, the RCC was the only game in town in the West. Can't say the same anymore. In 1000 years Papal primacy will be a quaint footnote in the history books.

Thanks, Alicia.

Maybe common civility and family feeling should cause one to respect the particular faith tradition of other family members, particularly when they are guests. But what do I know.

Will any of this make a difference in a thousand years?

It is the only thing that will matter in a thousand years.

I wonder what Jesus would say about all this talk about a "true" church? I do not think He would fine a difference between any Christian church.

Rod, I don't disagree with anything you write in this post and will therefore just say that those pants make you look fat.

Thanks for posting the only fair analysis of this document in the entire media, Rod. Serious Catholics really appreciate this sort of journalism. It is fun to read this column.
God bless, a devoted Catholic & regular reader

1000 years? It matters eternally.

Wow, tv, I have to say that that is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen written anywhere. A "quaint footnote in the history books"? Perhaps if history books are written by the eqivalent of Paris Hilton at that future time.
OTOH, that is possible, i suppose.

The only reason it's as big a deal as it is now is because Christianity still holds sway in the West. It does so largely because it was the only game in town for the past 2k years or so.

Guess what? There's plenty more games in town.

As Rod and others are fond of noting, the world has gotten *more* permissive with each passing era. The efforts of Ratzinger aside, the world simply doesn't trend to authority. Surely even the newly burgeoning movement in Africa will not result in worldwide subjugation of the entirety of humanity to Christianity, let alone the RCC flavor of it - especially considering the authoritarian leanings of its patriarchy.

As history shows, people throw *off* ideological shackles as society progresses, not the other way around.

1000 years ago, the RCC was the only game in town in the West. Can't say the same anymore. In 1000 years Papal primacy will be a quaint footnote in the history books.

~tv:

Year: # Roman Catholics (% of Christians)

1800: 106 million (52%)
2007: 1.14 billion (52%)

Exactly where do you get your crystal ball that says Catholicism is fading away to some "footnote" of history? Those Papists just won't go away, dammit - didn't they get the memo?

History certainly doesn't back you up. The only example we have of 1000 years of dissing Papal primacy is the Orthodox, and they have gone from 50%+ of Christianity to 10% over those 1000 years.

And we see no recent trends showing your prediction, either. So...give me some reason to believe you...or just pass me the bong.

M_David ,

I big portion of catholics are in Latin America. Could you go over with us how Catholicism got a foot hold on the American continent? And can you also explain the role of the catholic church with respect to the Orthodox churches in places like Ethiopia and India during the world wars, and don't forget the Italian army's role? The issue is not the numbers, it is how did you get to those numbers. The bishop's crosier is just as bloody as the "prophet's" sword. The Lord said, "many are called, but few are chosen". Your argument is silly, M_David, no offense.

As a Catholic and human being, it saddens me to see that the voice of the church I have for years professed to being all forgiving has become so intolerant of other people's values and cultures. I was very surprised when the present Pope was elected, especially considering his past connection with the Nazi party as a youth and his later anti-semetic writings. Should not this man lead the way and be an example to the rest of the world that tolerance and exceptance is what is missing in our generation; not death, hatred and intolerance.

~tv: As history shows, people throw *off* ideological shackles as society progresses, not the other way around.

Actually, people exchange one set of shackles for another. It's human nature. Like Mr. Zimmerman said, gotta serve somebody.

The pope knows that much of the Christian world is more divided trans-denomination than between denominations today. Many groups of people who call themselves Christian are not Christian in any way, shape, or form in a classical or Biblical sense. Keep that in mind when you try to interpret or digest the pope's communication. We may actually be in a non-denominational age (I do not mean that in the sense that the "non-denominational" groups will prevail) so it is OK for the pope to issue something like this at this time.

Nobody should feel hurt or insulted by this. No insult is directed to anyone. Protestants should not go nuts like many Muslims did about the reference to Islam on his lecture about faith and reason last year.

Brendan:
How dare you slander the pope! You say you are a Catholic, yet you write lies about Benedict without any credible sources to back you up. Even if you disagree with him, charity should keep you from lying about the man.

Look PB16 up on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

He did not join the Nazi Party nor was he a sympathizer. He was enrolled by the Nazis as a 14-year old but refused to have any part of it. As a seminarian he was drafted by the Nazis but deserted and when caught was put in a POW camp.

As for the charges of anti-semitism, I'd like to see you back up these assertions, if you can, which I doubt.

Rod,

Thanks for your update but what would ever compel you to comment on a Vatican document based on a wire story in the first place? Can you think of one instance in which any mainstream news agency has correctly covered a papal or magisterial document? Honestly, sometimes I can't tell if you have a functioning B.S. meter.

What a great thread!

Funniest post: "Can't we all just agree to think everyone else is an idiot and not be offened by it? :-)" Joey

Most incisive post: "...theological differences, while important, are less important than the command to treat all men and women as my neighbors and to love my neighbor as myself. But acknowledging those differences, and even acting upon them, is not contrary to Christian love. Sometimes its even necessary to Christian love. The sailor shipwrecked in a dark and stormy sea, who has found some little island of truth and salvation, will shout to his shipmates that they should swim to the island from the sandbars they're on, if he loves them." Osvaldo Mandias

Best comeback: "Will any of this matter in 1000 years?
Why not? It mattered 1000 years ago." thomas tucker

Famous last words: "In 1000 years Papal primacy will be a quaint footnote in the history books." ~tv

Best non-intentional arguement starter: "I wonder what Jesus would say about all this talk about a 'true' church? I do not think He would find a difference among Christian churches." richard armstrong

Another funniest post: "And we see no recent trends showing your prediction, either [~tv}. So...give me some reason to believe you...or just pass me the bong."
M_David

Easiest to hit out of the park post: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like one could believe just about anything, however heterodox, worship in some really strange ways, but still be catholic as long as he recognizes the primacy of the pope. My catholic brethren: please enlighten my benighted, bigoted, uninformed opinion...really." Out Here

Out Here, there must be millions of people who recognize the primacy of the pope in one way or another, but who are not Catholic.

Most astonishingly ignorant and dishonest post (but in a nice way): "As a Catholic and human being, it saddens me to see that the voice of the church I have for years professed to being all forgiving has become so intolerant of other people's values and cultures. I was very surprised when the present Pope was elected, especially considering his past connection with the Nazi party as a youth and his later anti-semetic writings. Should not this man lead the way and be an example to the rest of the world that tolerance and exceptance is what is missing in our generation; not death, hatred and intolerance." Brendan

Even in comments of many catholics there is often a shade of proud exitement like in sport, they rarely tell about accuracy of their teaching comparing to teachings of other christians, but in first place always stress on undisputable superiority. And combined with ironic and haughty tone it can make rather repulsive impression and chase people away from R.Catholicism (Cleveland, i m not talking about you)
Of course there are also Orthodox specimen who use any opportunity to tell to Catholics that they are heretics, but still it is not typical for a pious Orthodox. As far as i know priests do not recommend to orthodox to take part in debates with people of another confessions, it is allowed only to people who know a lot and have very strong faith, those who have no risk to break their necks in debates and lose even what they have.
And as far as i notice orthodox are usually not satisfied with level of their faith, they always want more, they are more introspective. Perhaps R.C. and O. really strategies. Roman -expanding, Ortodox -thoroughly preserving what it has, not caring about expanding. Hence the Roman Church more often recruites believers than Orthodox, and Orthodox church people usually find themselves, with different odd and often mysterious ways. Some call it devine intent.

I would not assert that mysterious things don't happen in R.C. or often happen in Orthodox. We are free to believe or not believe until they happen with us. As a doubting Thomas I m always in doubts untill i see.

Masha,

Regarding your comment about Unity in reply to what someone else wrote, I think that the original person didn't like what exists in the US and the America's in general and not what is normal elsewhere.

If John R, who wrote the comment that you replied to, lived in Russia or in Crete, or Greece or Japan where the "jurisdictional mess" doesn't exist, his reason for not becoming an Orthodox Catholic would be gone.

As you and Out Here both mentioned, Unity of Faith is the unity that should be looking for and even with the mess of Jurisdictions we have in the America's, it is still one Church.

The issue of just what is Unity somewhat defines the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Roman Catholics seem to put emphasis on administrative unity as the sign of the Church and the Orthodox Catholics look at the unity of the faith as a sign of the Church. From an Orthodox point of view the Roman Catholic Church is wounded since the bishop of Rome is no longer in Communion with those who once were his brother bishops.

One of the clearest ways of seeing this wounded state of the Roman Catholic Church since the Great Schism of 1054 comes from the Roman Catholic Church herself. Look at the list of popes from before 1054 and after. The number of popes of Rome recognized as saints before 1054 is huge. The number of popes of Rome recognized as saints after 1054 is very few. That should say something to those who value administrative unity over the unity of the faith.

As an Orthodox Catholic (and Orthodox Catholic Church is the canonical name of what is referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church) I like the current Pope of Rome and I will always be glad to see some clear statements from Rome about what they believe. It is refreshing after decades of what seemed "anything goes" excused away as "in the spirit of Vatican II".

evan

This is truly the funniest thread Rod's hosted in a long time, if for nothing more than the insistence of members of the RCC that the pope is the grand-daddy of all connection with God, despite the evidence presented to them on a daily basis - chronicled, incidentally, by Rod and countless others.

You all make a point to screed about how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket almost daily, yet you insist that "Catholicism is winning the God war." Judging from

1) the rise of scientific inquiry
2) the individualist ethic
3) the freedom of women
4) the power of the marketplace over the community
5) the throwing away of the Just War ethic
6) the rate of abortion
7) the acceptance of gays
8) the rate of premarital sex

...I'd say that the proof is in the pudding - the pope can make all the pronouncements about the "woundedness" of every collective outside of his auspices, but his pronouncement does not suddenly re-write reality for the other 6 billion people on the planet.

The world is trending away from belief in the authority of old men in robes, and has been for the last couple hundred years - slowly at first, but the momentum is picking up, wouldn't you say?

In reference to some of the above comments, I once encountered a Catholic (in a Catholic institution, no less) who believed the Protestant Reformation saved the Catholic Church. I believe his assertion was that Luther's stance against the corruption of the church saved it from itself. Interesting if true, eh? Of course, that was just one person's opinion.

Masha,
We Catholics believe that an intrinsic component of Catholicity is communion with the succesor to Peter and recognition that Christ gave him special authority in the governance of the Church. Why he chose to do so, we can only speculate, but we see in both the special role of Peter among the disciples and the role of the Bishop of Rome in the early church the foundation of that authority.

I started to think over this theme in this thread:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/07/how-dyou-say-free-at-last-in-l.html

It's gone in past, i will not write it again completely.
The role of Peter in forming church is special, but interpreting words of Jesus as blessing Peter to become an authoritarian ruler seems to me a free interpretation. On church paintings all apostles sit near as equals noone's nimbus is bigger than the others.

Even if Peter personally was supposed to be an authoritarian ruler, in what way it means anyone should be after his death? Isn't it a too much responsibility for any human person who never even seen Jesus alive to be responsible for the whole christian world alone? What if he falls into temptation (for example would support homosexual marriage)? Who would stop him? If it didn't happen yet where is the garantee that it would not happen in future?
In Orthodox Church at least Patriarchs could gather and decide what to do with the wrong brother, Patriarchs are not sinless but they are many, so it must be less dangerous for church to go astray.

By the way, tomorrow is a day of Peter and Paul. A big holiday!
We have a proverb: Peter and Paul taken away an hour.( day becomes an hour shorter) They are not separated, as if they were twins, in childhood i thought they were one person.

quote: "he world is trending away from belief in the authority of old men in robes, and has been for the last couple hundred years - slowly at first, but the momentum is picking up, wouldn't you say?"

Well, there is a lot of immorality in the world today. But it's not exactly anything new. Some conservatives do like to pine away for the good old days and talk about how bad things are today. But the "good old days" often weren't all that good. For example, church membership in colonial America was much lower than it is today, and something like a third of brides were pregnant on their wedding day. Oh yeah, and abortion was pretty common and openly advertised during much of the 19th century in NYC. One can also cite similar examples of sin from Europe, even during the middle ages and early modern period when people were, at least on the surface, more religious.
These are just a few examples, but needless to say I don't see any particular momentum. Mankind is still sinful by nature.

rr

Out Here,

I guess the first advice I would give is to read the actual document and not the media spin on it, which tends to go through these things and cherry-pick the excerpts that can be fed to other Christians to provoke them to outrage. Really, sometimes it seems that the media is driven by that much malice toward Catholicism. Of course, I also remember that "blessed are you when they hate you and despise you"; after all, as I always like to say, one of the fun things about being Catholic is that you are hated by all the right people. If you Orthodox had higher profiles you'd be hated too!

Anyhow, the Church is not saying that the papacy is the be-all and end-all, but simply pointing out the truth that we see the papacy as necessary for the church. Obviously if you accept the pope and reject Christian morality and the other doctrines of the church it is not "all right".

It is worth remembering, too, that even the great councils of Christianity were called to resolve disputes, so sometimes they get focused on more than areas of agreement because they are the point in question, so to speak; the Catholics and Orthodox agree on 99 percent of everything, so the things that separate us become the focus of the conversation.

See if this works for an analogy: If one state decided that all cars had to have fog lights, than any car that didn't have them would be "defective" in that way from the point of view of the people who had put in the regulation. It doesn't mean the car is "bad" or that the brakes or steering wheel won't work or that it won't get you to your destination (salvation, in this case!).

The Catholic Church does not want the submission of Orthodoxy as a slave to a master, so I think your commentary on that point misses the mark. We believe that your church has true sacraments and that already God hears your prayers. That's right there in black-and-white Catholic Church teaching, OK?
I think a better analogy is like this: Say a family had a dispute and one half wouldn't meet with the other. Each family met on their own and everyone had a good time, but the whole group wouldn't get back together.
Now, imagine the great joy if they one day healed the break and all assembled and bad things in the past were forgiven and forgotten.
Of course, the Orthodox would have the right to do their liturgy exactly as before, in a reunited church.

Hope this helps

Out Here,

M_David, Maybe you can give me a straight answer about my previous question: What constitutes "woundedness" and being "healthy". If supremacy is contigent on being "healthy", please clarify exactly in what way the Roman Catholic Church is, and has been "healthy".

I have no idea. Heck, I'm no authority.

[RCC/EO unity] these are question I think about all the time, please don't view them as silly questions. I really want to know.

In my off-the-cuff (probably wrong) opinion, I doubt the Orthodox will ever unify with the RCC.

The distance is simply too great; the EO would have to accept 1000 years of new councils. They are two very different religions. So I can't see how it could happen. Can you?

And why would the RCC bend her doctrine very far to try it anyway? There are only 220 million Orthodox in the world today, and they have the lowest mission rates of any mainline denomination, plus some of the lowest birth rates in the world to boot.

So my best guess is the Vatican probably feels there are bigger, easier fish to fry, and will simply pay lip-service to unity while just waiting out the inevitable demographic decline.

But I really have no idea, and would love to hear of some way RRC/EO unity could happen. The RCC could use some tradition these days, IMO.

The distance is simply too great; the EO would have to accept 1000 years of new councils. They are two very different religions. So I can't see how it could happen. Can you?

And why would the RCC bend her doctrine very far to try it anyway? There are only 220 million Orthodox in the world today, and they have the lowest mission rates of any mainline denomination, plus some of the lowest birth rates in the world to boot.

So my best guess is the Vatican probably feels there are bigger, easier fish to fry, and will simply pay lip-service to unity while just waiting out the inevitable demographic decline.

I think (respectfully) that you are way off base on this, M_David.

Ecumenism is one of the highest priorities of this Pope, and from the first days of his pontificate he has made relations with Orthodoxy a priority among priorities.

Anyone reading this latest document as anti-ecumenical simply hasn't read it. Benedict believes, however, that authentic ecumenical dialogue requires each party laying its cards honestly on the table. The objection by some Protestants to the language about not being "churches" in the Catholic sense of the term is precisely the same as their objection to closed communion. For Catholics (and Orthodox) real sacramental communion with Jesus Christ in union with the successors of the apostles IS the Church. If the Eucharist is not celebrated, or it is viewed as a mere symbol, or it is conducted by persons who lack apostolic succession, then there simply is no Church. That doesn't imply that Protestants are less worthy persons, or that they are not Christians. It simply means that, from the Catholic point of view, a "Church" is more than just a fellowship of Christians.

Orthodoxy, along with Oriental Orthodoxy, is in true communion with Jesus Christ, with apostolic succession. They are thus "churches" in the most important sense of the term. Their communion is impaired only because we believe that Christ intended His Church to be united around the particular successor of St. Peter, the Rock. This union isn't "administrative" (and for most of Church history Popes have had little administrative control over local Churches beyond central Italy) but rather a touchstone of the fullness of the Faith.

That said, this Pope has written (as Cardinal Ratzinger) that Rome cannot and does not expect the Orthodox to accept anything more than what was commonly held and taught by the Church in the first Millenium. Now, what exactly that common patrimony is, of course, is the subject of exhaustive official theological dialogue and probably will continue to be long beyond our lifetimes. But Rome does not expect or ask the Orthodox to ratify the last 14 western ecumenical councils, or to submit to papal appointment of bishops, codified canon law, etc.

The biggest obstacle to restoration of communion with the Orthodox, in my view, is that the Orthodox don't really want it and have no means of effecting it until their internal jurisdictional rivalries are sorted out. Until then, even if the Pope and most of the patriarchs reached complete agreement on every outstanding theological issue, the most xenophobic elements in Moscow and on Mt. Athos will always have a veto.

Pope: Other denominations not true churches - so there you have it!!!!! Time for all other to quit fooling around and come back to the Catholic Church
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’

I agree that the pope should feel his church is the best. I feel that way about my church, the Congregational church. HOWEVER, I do not feel that my church is the only true church. I think that is a MAJOR difference, one which the current hierarchy of the RC church will never see.

M_David,
I do not know if we are to different religions, but you are right in saying they have gone down very different paths. We can agree on a great many things, but after reading Fr. Thomas Hopko's demands, with which I totaly agree, the obstacles seem insurmountable. From my perspective, I would love for the Orthodox and Catholics to unite, I would love to attend a traditional Tridentine mass (it would help if it was in English, and even better if we got rid of the pews :) ) and for a fellow Catholic to come to an Orthodox all night vigil, or presanctified litrugy during lent. But unfortunately it seems the Roman church has moved in a direction, rather, has so modernized itself, that the ritual, traditions and practices in the OC just seem irrelivant. I can't imagine the Orthodox every reconciling themselves with guitars, drums, pianos, "eucharistic ministers" and many of the other "innovations" within the RC. I'm glad to see a revitilization of tradition, but I'm afraid its to late to turn back the clock. These changes seem to be here to stay. But, we will still pray for unity

Of course, there's always the third world, where the under educated and under employed truly need an authority figure to promise them life eternal. Life temporal sure sucks enough for them.

Yes, what would all of those poor brown idiots without cubicles to space out in do without a future happiness to hope for? Luckily, rich, happy, fulfilled, overeducated, overemployed North American atheists have figured it out with desperate --- and not at all racist, elitist, and condescending --- statements such as the one deployed above by tv to fend off fears that perhaps Christ is calling him to eternal life.

Faith is the means to salvation

Scripture repeatedly states that faith, not faith PLUS the 7 sacraments, is the means through which one receives salvation.
Some Scripture to back this up: John 1:12, 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26, 10:9-13; etc.
Protestants base their belief system upon this.

The Catholic Church is and has been OBSESSED with tradition and ritual. I believe the Pharisees were, too, at the time of Jesus. Jesus condemned them for adding fake tradition and false rules to God's law.

In some ways, I see the Catholic Church as being guilty of this, too. They have added so many, in my opinion, worthless rituals that haven't added to Christ's Body, His Church.

Christ came to BREAK tradition.

I absolutely loved the first comment posted on this page by Eric. He used the verse:
Jesus Christ: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

Not the pope, not the priest, not the nun. Jesus alone offers me eternal salvation.

In the concept of grace, the word 'deserve' doesn't even apply. There are no amount of prayers you can say that will make you worthy of God's grace. God, in His amazing love for His fallen creation, offers it free of charge. Some Protestants seem to offer a 'cheap' grace, and some Catholics say you have to work for grace. Whether Protestant or Catholic, we have so much to learn about God. What is our source of knowledge?

The Bible has proved to be only infallible entity.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this,
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12.30-31

Shekinah blessings

Aaron,

You are right.

A key difference between Catholics and “Bible Christians” (Protestants) is the understanding of how we can approach God.

Catholics tend to approach God through intermediaries, such as Mary or the saints.

Protestant Christians approach God directly, offering prayers to no one other than God Himself.

The Bible proclaims that we ourselves can approach God’s throne of grace with boldness (Hebrews 4:16).

The Bible is perfectly clear that God desires us to pray to Him, to have communication with Him, to ask Him for the things we need (Philippians 4:6; Matthew 7:7-8; 1 John 5:14-15).

There is no need for mediators or intermediaries, as Christ is our one and only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), and both Christ and the Holy Spirit are already interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25).

Catholic friend, God loves you intimately and has provided an open door to direct communication through Jesus.

Jesus is the one and only mediator!

Sorry. Apparently linking does not work here. My apologies.

Here is the address though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,,1469132,00.html

a quote:

"Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

"It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor."

Nothing unusual about what he said and it has been said before. Not a big surprise. He is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church after all and is affirming its position. As the saying goes, if you don't stnd for something,you fall for anything. Also, whether or not you agree with church teachings, they are clear and consistent. You do have to respect that -- especially today.

2) One of the reason Orthodoxy was envoloped by Muslims is the baby gap.

3) Orthdoxy has very different doctrine on marriage and birth control than Catholics.

4) Orthodoxy also has very low birth rates, yet Muslims living alongside of them have very high birth rates. So theology must have something to do with it.

Where does one even start with something like this?

Orthodoxy certainly does NOT have very different doctrine on marriage and birth control from that of the Catholic Church. It has somewhat different pastoral, practical applications of that doctrine.

But regardless: 20th and 21st century attitudes toward birth control and communion for divorced/remarried persons hardly explain the Islamic invasion and conquest of most of the Orthodox Christian World which took place from the 7th through 15th centuries!

I suspect the main reason for lower Christian birthrates in the Middle East has to do with the fact that Christians living within the Dar-El-Islam are a beleaguered, economically and physically insecure minority.

As Mary Eberstadt has argued, low birthrates may have consequences for religious belief and practice, but low birthrates are not the result of lukewarm/secular religious belief or practice.

tv: Last time I checked Jesus Christ is the "authority" who calls us to "life eternal". Perhaps the confusion between Jesus Christ and the pope comes from you??

Maplewood: I ask you to back up your incredibly slanderous statements against the pope and you cough up an article on the epistula from ... The Guardian?? Of all places! You must know nothing, I mean nothing at all, about the Catholic Church, to think that that lefty, atheistic rag has any authority on evaluating documents from the Vatican. I mean, how bizarre that you throw out such outrageous claims yet with such smug assuredness that you have me served. I'm stung .... no really, I am. :)

tv: Last time I checked Jesus Christ is the "authority" who calls us to "life eternal". Perhaps the confusion between Jesus Christ and the pope comes from you??

You're apparently not keeping up. This discussion is about the pope attempting to exert his authority over the entirety of Christendom. My point is, it ain't gonna happen here in the West. Picture the US in a couple hundred years as Europe post-Enlightenment.

The only place left is the third world, where life is such a struggle that pie in the sky when ya die is the best they have to hope for - since popey is offering said pie in the sky via submission to his authority, there's your niche.

Enjoy it.

Those same people can have their Christ without your pope, but that's really not what we're talking about, is it?

As I said - *do* try to keep up.

Siglaris:About that anti-Catholic website whose link you listed in your post.The site itself is a plethora of Jack Chick-esque high-larity: At the bottom of the page we are invited to
Please visit my other site for essays on UFOs, conspiracies, and more

As for Fr. Doyle, I know little about the man other than he is an activist for sexual abuse survivors. I have no reason to doubt his intentions, but his opinion on this document is just that -- an opinion! It's better informed than the Guardian's but still doesn't support the slanderous points made by others on this thread about the pope.

Er... technically, my arguments re: the "third world" are classist, not racist.

Thanks for playing :)

Per sigaliris: "elmo,...If you don't know who Thomas Doyle is, you might want to learn before assessing his value."

Hey, sig, what is it with you and maverick Dominicans?

Fr. Thomas Doyle, a Dominican canon lawyer, served at the nunciature in Washington. Twenty-some years ago, he teamed up with F. Ray Mouton, who at the time was defending a predator priest, and Fr. Michael Petersen, a priest-psychiatrist who was head of the St. Luke Institute for predator priests in Maryland. (Years later, St. Luke's got into trouble for not giving police the names of priests who had abused children.)
This threesome wrote a report to the bishops about clerical sexual abuse of minors, and "wanted to become sort of a flying squad to go around the country and deal with these problems", according to one commentator. "By 1992... most of the recommendations in the Doyle-Mouton-Petersen report had been put in place by most ordinaries. Fr. Petersen died of AIDS in the late 80's. Mr. Mouton... no longer practices law and lives in the French Quarter in New Orleans. Fr. Doyle became embittered when the bishops didn't act the way he wanted them to. He had explicitly warned [the bishops that trouble would develop] if they didn't make him the point man on this issue.

[After losing his job at the nunciature, h]e became an Air Force chaplain [but was booted out of that position for refusing to say daily Mass] and an expert witness for any plaintiff who wanted to sue his bishop for sexual abuse at the hands of a priest."

This embittered soul was a speaker at the 2006 national Call To Action conference--an anti-Catholic, truly homosocialist group of Catholic heretics (not that there's anything wrong with that) whose members are automatically excomunicated by at least one bishop. It's enough for me to make up my mind about the Catholicity of this priest.

Thank goodness he doesn't wear a Roman collar. I hope folks think he represents the National Council of Churches. Oops, I mean National Council of faith groups.

Well, Cleveland, that's one view of Fr. Thomas Doyle. I myself wouldn't refer to a faithful priest with this many years of service as a "renegade." You don't give source for the information you posted, but it seems to me that there's an awful lot of guilt by association presumed there. Also, this commentator makes it appear that Doyle decided off the top of his head to write some report out of left field. This is not the case. He was assigned to do so as part of his duties as a canon lawyer assisting Archbishop Pio Laghi, the papal envoy. As a result of his role in bringing this unwelcome information to light, his career was derailed. Rather than quitting in bitterness, however, he continued to serve as an Air Force chaplain. To me, this doesn't look like the response of a self-seeking man. And in his response to the Crimen Sollicitationis document--which I wish people would read, rather than arguing over the personality of the man who wrote it--he presents a very balanced approach that certainly is not inflammatory or slanderous.

Here is an article about the Doyle-Mouton-Peterson report you refer to:
http://www.catholicsexabuse.com/WHAT_THEY_KNEW_IN_1985

And here is more complete biographical information about Fr. Thomas Doyle:
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-02-10/cover_story.html

I consider him a trustworthy source, but of course people have to make up their own minds about that.

Cleveland, I'm sorry--you never said "renegade." You said "maverick"--a much less pejorative term. I guess I like mavericks of all kinds, Dominican or not! : )

Orphan, those are some great questions, and thanks for returning the focus to the original topic, which I guess I've wandered off from a bit. I don't know if anyone will respond since you're coming in on the end of a long thread, but welcome, and I hope you'll post again farther upstream.

Are the seven Catholic sacraments Biblical?

Question: "Are the seven Catholic sacraments Biblical?"

Answer: “Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification” (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that while God gives grace to man without outward symbols (sacraments), He has also chosen to give grace to man through visible symbols. Because God has done this, man is foolish to not make use of this God-provided means of gaining sanctification.

In order to qualify as a sacrament, the Roman Catholic Church states that it must meet the following three criteria: a) the external, that is a sensibly perceptibly sign of sanctifying grace, b) the conferring of sanctifying grace, c) the institution by God or, more accurately, by the God-Man Jesus Christ. Thus, sacraments are not merely a symbol, but are believed to actually confer sanctifying grace upon the recipient. The Roman Catholic Church believes that all of their seven sacraments were instituted by Christ Himself. There are seven Roman Catholic Sacraments, and they are as follows:
1) Baptism, which the Roman Catholic Church teaches removes original sin while infusing it with sanctifying grace.
2) Penance, in which one confesses his/her sins to a priest.
3) The Eucharist, considered the reception and consumption of the actual body and blood of Christ.
4) Confirmation, a formal acceptance into the church along with special anointing of the Holy Spirit.
5) Anointing of the sick or Extreme Unction, performed on a dying person for spiritual and physical strength as preparation for heaven. When combined with confession and the Eucharist, it is called the last rites.
6) Holy Orders, the process by which men are ordained to clergy.
7) Matrimony, which provides special grace to a couple.

Following are verses commonly cited to support the Roman Catholic belief concerning the sacraments: “Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." (2 Timothy 1:6). "Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5). "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit," (Titus 3:5). "that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word," (Ephesians 5:26). "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”" (John 20:23). "And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:15). "Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:17). "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (John 6:54-55).

In view of the above Scriptures, it might seem by looking at those verses by themselves that indeed they do convey some benefit (such as eternal life, the forgiveness of sins, the presence of the Holy Spirit, or His power or spiritual gift of service, etc.). However, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.

There are two of the main sacraments that specifically are said by the Roman Catholic Church to be necessary for one to partake of in order to gain eternal life: baptism and communion. Because of the Roman Catholic Church belief that baptism is required for salvation, they maintain that it is important to baptize infants. But nowhere in Scripture can you find even a single example or command to do so. Some Roman Catholics use Acts 16:33 as a possible example because it states that the Philippian jailor "and his family" were baptized. But taking this verse in context, we note two things:

(1) When the jailor asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul did NOT say, "believe on Jesus and be baptized and take communion." Rather Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). Thus, we see that it is faith that is the ingredient necessary for salvation. It was understood that one who believed would be baptized, but baptism was not necessary for salvation. If it had, Paul would have given it more weight in his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

(2) We see that the "family" could not have included infants or toddlers as it states in verse 34, that the jailor had "believed in God with all his household." Infants and toddlers cannot exercise faith in God in such a fashion.

Again and again throughout Scripture, faith, not faith PLUS baptism, is seen as the means through which one receives salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13; etc.).

Turning to communion, the Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that they take John 6:54 literally when Jesus says, "unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." The problem is that their belief that Jesus is speaking literally here is not in keeping with the context of the passage in which Jesus repeatedly states the importance of faith in Him and His coming atoning death for their sins (see John 6:29,35,40,47 and how they are in keeping with the whole message of the Gospel of John as stated in John 20:31).

When one examines the remaining sacraments in context, one finds that the belief that they convey "sanctifying grace" is not in keeping with the context of the rest of the Bible. Yes, all Christians should be baptized, but baptism does not infuse us with grace. Yes, all Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper, but doing so does not confer sanctifying grace. Yes, we should confess our sins, not to a priest, but rather to God (1 John 1:9). Having a formal training program and formal acceptance into the church is a good thing to do, but it does not convey saving grace. Being approved as a church leader is an honorable thing, but it does not result in grace. Marriage is a wonderful and blessed event in the life of a couple, but it is not the means of how God graces us. Praying for and with a person who is dying, and being in their presence is a godly thing to do – but it does not add grace to your account.

All the grace we will ever need is received the moment a person trusts Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do” when they are understood in a Biblical context – the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

-www.gotquestions.org

evan said:

"The issue of just what is Unity somewhat defines the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Roman Catholics seem to put emphasis on administrative unity as the sign of the Church and the Orthodox Catholics look at the unity of the faith as a sign of the Church. From an Orthodox point of view the Roman Catholic Church is wounded since the bishop of Rome is no longer in Communion with those who once were his brother bishops."

Actually, you haven't defined how the Catholic Church emphasizes unity. The Catholic Church emphasizes unity of faith and this unity is manifested visibly in the Pope of Rome. The "administrative unity" as you call it is the visible or outward sign of our unity in faith. It is all rather sacramental. From a Catholic point of view, the Orthodox Churches are lacking the visible sign of unity in faith by the lack of the Petrine Ministry ordained by Christ. It is they who are not in perfect communion with the Bishop who manifests this divinely ordained office, Pope Benedict XVI.

Christian leaders are allowed to be married in Christianity.
1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 Whose church is untrue? If people
do not teach what Paul taught, they are not servants of God.
Romans 16:17-18 They serve their belly. (KJV) See also
how they deceive the hearts of the simple in these verses.

Loran Washington DC

Anyone able to use their mind would know the pope is in error. The one and true God of the Roman Catholic Church created the universe more than 4.5 billion years ago. Man is known to have existed more than 6 million years ago. I refused to believe that God waited all this time ignoring thousand of churches (religions) and millions of his creation until recently, in the fourth century, to "affiliate" himself with the one and only true church. The church would have you believe that all existence before and after the establish Roman Catholic Church are doomed for eternity.

Do you truly believe an honest, truly lovable God would embrace only catholics to his kingdom? What would be his purpose to condemn non-catholic good people especially children? The document issued by the Vatican this week restating its believe that the Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ could best be described as both incredibly naive and utterly devoid of truth.

In view of the sexual behavior of so many priests and the deliberate cover up of the crime by cardinals and popes, you should seriously give some thoughts to why a good loving God would want to have anything to do with such a church. Can it be true that the pope is the direct descendant of St Peter as directed by God through his Son to be head of such a despicable church. Good God, do not let it be so.

Orthodox Christian

I really do not understand what you are telling me other than implying that the Orthodox Church is the true church. From what you say does not make so.

In regards to you being saved every day from your sins, why do you sins so much? A God would be proud of me for I never sins. I obey the laws of the land and I have been staying out of trouble for some 80 years.

I am a good man. I am a generous man. I sponsor a child in Niger, Africa because the Lord does not seem to care about the millions that are starving in Africa. If all the members of the Orthodox Church would sponsor a child in Africa there would be no children starving. The Lord easily could make you do that.

In studying the history of religions I equate it with the history of world I can't help but think the world would be better off if there would not have been any religions. The Lord needs to explain to us why so many innocent children have to suffer. Maybe you could tell me.

What does it mean to "come at once to the truth." If man, especially religious people, would be truthful with mankind the world would be a better place to live. It takes a strong will individual, hard fact and evidence to know the truth. I am all for the truth when it is proven.

Loran

There is only ONE faith, ONE God and ONE Baptism ONE Church as is tought by the Lord. The idea of "churches" either "true" or "false" is the product of mans continued failure to obey God.

Being a "good person" is not the issue. Many good people who love all other people are in constant disregard to the commandments of Jesus Christ. So it is good to be a good person.....it is better to obey the Lords Holy Word in all things so that in being good that 'good' bares fruit in Christ name alone and not ours. This is understood by Christs followers.

We are by nature disobedient creatures. And have created confusion for oursleves. WE are like the Jews of old.

If we could obey then we could love each other without conditon of any kind. Upon which we would have no wars or crimes agianst humanity such as what has been heaped onto innocent nations that have been under the iron foot of wicked albiet more powerful nations for the last 2oo to 3oo years and beyond.

Love without conditions at all is the wholeness of the truth which is the primal substance of the ONE HOLY UNIVERSAL, APOSTOLIC CHURCH established by Christ alone and given to His Twelve Apostles to expand to all humanity.

This not imply modern day "apostles". The Holy Church has only 12..that is it and we know them from the Holy Scripture and the life of the Church. Anything more is folly...unholy folly.

In this way we need no reference to Rome or Popes or any nation of men. We need only reference God.

Christ is the savior of the world.

Teaching people about papal supremacy and all the other pomp is like clouds without water or a fig tree that bares no fruit.

People are starving in Africa because of the greed of man. he greediast men on earth are behind the atrocities on that God blessed continent. God loves all of us. WE cause the pain we have.

Thanks