Is the pope Catholic?

ROME, JULY 18, 2007 (Zenit.org)... Bishop Brian Farrell...,
secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said
... the media presentation of the document has not been complete.

"As often happens, theological complexity gets lost in the way the story unfolds, especially in the media," he said. "There is not just one, but a number of affirmations in this document, and they must all be taken together.

"The document cannot be reduced to saying: 'The Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church.' It also says: '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."

Bishop Farrell noted that the document caused initial negative reactions among non-Catholics.

However, he stated that "there is nothing new or surprising in this document" and said that he believes it "will be seen as inviting us all to be more theologically exact in our dialogues, and perhaps more creative in making our position better understood."

"Of course, no Christian body likes to hear that we Catholics think they are missing something that is essential in the concept of Church," he said. "Just as we do not like to hear our Orthodox friends say that they alone are the true continuation of the undivided Church of the first millennium.

"Likewise, at the center of the Reformation there is a radical critique of the Catholic Church as not having remained faithful to Christ and to the Scriptures.

"So it cannot come as a surprise to our Protestant partners that there are different ideas of 'Church' at work in our views of one another."
-------------------------------------
And the beat goes on.

Well put, Rod.

In the DMN article, Rod wrote:

"It's wrong and dangerous, though, to expect a religious believer to affirm that all beliefs about God could be equally true – which is what Benedict's critics really demand. To do so would be to empty religion of its deepest meaning – to turn it into something that's merely socially or personally useful."

Last week, in the comments under the post regarding the death of religion in Europe, Rod wrote:

"I guess what I mean to say is that for Christians, living in truth does not ultimately mean assenting to doctrines (though that is profoundly important). It *ultimately* means establishing a transformative relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. Truth, then, is in the end a Person. I am aware of the problems of subjectivity that that introduces into the practice and understanding of faith."

My problem here is that I see two fundamentally conflicting ideas at work. Can we really say that religion is objectively true, but that its subjective truth will depend on the predisposition of the believer, and on whether or not the individual's spiritual needs are being met?

This is not in any way an attempt to rehash Rod's personal situation; it's simply my struggle with the important and paradoxical dynamic at work here. The questions for the believer are, first, how do I know the faith I believe and practice is objectively the true faith, and second, how do I relate to those who either a) believe that *their* faith is objectively true, or b) believe that the subjective is the more important, e.g. that a religion's social or personal utility are in fact more important than any questions of objective truth?

I have a suspicion that the difference between a Catholic's view of these questions' answers and the Protestant view explain some of the misunderstandings which followed the Pope's recent statement.