Benny wants the Jesuits “renewed commitment to promote and defend Catholic doctrine.”
Guess the Jesuits have been rebeling against the hallowed authority of the Big Dude. How sad! I hope they continue to do whatever they have been doing. Need a little free thinking in the RCC.

Quote: Benedict enjoined the Jesuits to “rediscover the fullest sense” of their orders unique vow of obediance to the pontiff. That vow, the pope said “does not imply only the readiness to be sent on mission to distant lands, but also…to ‘love and serve’ the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Could this mean that if the Jesuits don’t put religious pluralism and human sexuality back under the Popes orthodoxy requirements that they will be wisked away to distant lands where this will be an impossibility to continue to be, say a little unorthodox?
I can see why Martin Luther started the Lutheran Church. Why are Popes only the Vicar of Christ? Why can’t people who follow Christ in the RCC listen to the calling of The Holy Spirit and follow Him, why is a Pope a Pope to begin with? Christ died to bring us the Holy Spirit, each and everyone of us. Why a middle man?

When the Jesuits revolt in the name of a little more liberalism it’s a very good sign for the RCC. Hang in there, J-guys!

Henrietta,
I’m pretty sure it’s a simple reference to the fact that the Jesuits historically were one of the major missions-oriented orders in Catholicism.

My concern? “the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as a means of salvation”. Once again, the argument of “We’re the one true religion,
and you’re not!” rears its ugly head. That had been one of Big Ben’s
finer moments, as the head of The Congregation of the Faith, when they published the same line in “Dominus Iesus”, the 2000 text on so-called
ecumenical issues.

The Popes didn’t structure the leadership of the Church, Christ did. For those that reject that fact fit into the Judas role, and their rightful choice to do so. Bottom line…if opinion is salvation, everyone will be there. If not, well, then, isn’t that always the other choice?

Thomas you are quick to use the word “fact”, at least in this case. I see no hint of evidence to support that. But then I see no hint of a reason to think “salvation” is a meaningful concept.
The need for such a thing is outrageous if you can just for a minute back off of what you were taught as a child. The idea an all-powerful god would design this marvel-filled universe so people would deserve to spend an eternity in “hell” is perverse even if your hell is no longer filled with fire, like it used to be.

“The Popes didn’t structure the leadership of the Church, Christ did.”
Christ said “there will be popes to run the church”? Where is that written?
The Jesuits have my respect just for bucking the system. I’m on their side. Anything to shed a little light into the dark of the secret side of the so called “vicar of Christ” and his troops.

Quote in my post..is Thomas’s.

Well historically, the Jesuits have always been the rebels in the RCC and I hope they do stand up to the Pope.We need to stop being the only religon that’s good for mankind and get back to the roots of Christianity and be like Christ and only then would our beloved church survive.

pagansister, since you need everything to be written down for you, please see the Lord’s statement regarding Peter, the leader of the apostles, in the Bible.
“Anything to shed a little light into the dark of the secret side of the so called “vicar of Christ” and his troops.”
Are you for real? Hard to take anyone seriously with statements like that. Why don’t you just start calling the RCC the “evil Empire” instead, since you know you want to.

Sure am for real, no name. I admire folks who stand up to outdated rules. The RCC has a few (dozen) of those. “evil empire” I didn’t say that, you just did.
I figured the idea for the pope was in the “good book” somewhere…Interesting that other religions didn’t pick up on that.
BTW, thanks for writing it down for me.

Pagansister,
Catholics, shockingly, aren’t Protestants. They don’t appeal to Scripture in the same way that Protestants do.
Papal primacy is supported (according to Catholics) in Jesus’ reference to Peter as the rock on whom the Church would be built. But just as importantly, papal primacy is grounded (again, according to Catholics) in the patristic tradition, which is just as theologically important as biblical text is.
Of course, as an Orthodox, I don’t believe that the Romish heresy of the papacy is grounded in either source, but that’s another matter.

Thanks for the explanation, NateW.

No wonder PB is so insistent on obedience; he doesn’t even have the supremely shaky foundation of the Bible to fall back on.

“as the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as a means of salvation”
At the risk of offending, which I swear is not my intention, I continue to be absolutely astounded that people living in the modern age could consider as remotely plausible a system of beliefs that would exclude pillars of enlightenment and selfless devotion such as the Dalai Lama or Ghandi from “salvation”, but rather condemn them to an eternity of suffering for a lack of obedience to the hierarchy of men. This latest pope, I feel, will finally show the emperor for his complete and utter lack of clothes.

Roland, I like your style.

Roland, at the risk of offending, which I swear is not my intention, I continue to be absolutely astounded the people living so long after Vatican II can still not understand Roman Catholic teaching on the issue of salvation.
Historical Christian teaching has taught pretty much from the beginning that “there is no salvation outside of the Church.” Roman Catholic ecclesiology holds that it is identical to the Church, so it believes that it is a necessary means of salvation. But what does “outside the Church” actually mean? It doesn’t mean “outside the institutional structure of the Church,” or even “outside the beliefs of the Church.” Catholicsm (and many streams of Protestantism and Orthodox as well) affirms the possibility of salvation for those who are not visibly Christian in this life. The Dalai Lama and Ghandi aren’t necessarily damned. Nor are their spiritual insights necessarily worthless, they’re just not salvific.
For all we know, the whole world might be saved in the end, but if they are saved, they will be saved (for Catholics) by Christ and through Christ’s body on earth, the Church.

Well Nate, that is a decidedly less bleak interpretation of the position on salvation as described by Vatican II or upheld by the RC in general then I have heard from others. I will accept your interpretation as what it is (yours) and I have heard similar positions from the more liberal christian set. I have also heard positions staunchly defended that paint a quite more “damning” picture, if you’ll pardon the pun.
So my question for you is, do you feel that PB would support your position? Or would he interpret Vatican II differently (i.e. more along the lines of the “you seem like such a nice guy, if you were protestant, maybe we’d let you slide, but a heathen? its too bad you’ll rot in hell” rhetoric that I’ve heard so often)?

The Jesuits have been the hole in the papal sock for many years and papal reigns. I am not sure if Ben wants to mend the metaphorical sock or if he wants them to become a new one. Good luck with that!

The Jesuits can be a real pain in the a**!
And many of them are homosexuals.
They need to grow up those punks and follow the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church!

Being a pain in the a** can be good, depending on whose a** is pained. Being homosexual is neither good nor bad and I don’t know what your point was in bringing it up.
As for following the true teachings of the RCC, does that include sheltering child molesters? Torturing women in institutions run by nuns in Ireland (Google “Magdalene laundry”)? I cannot imagine how someone could urge anyone to “follow the true teachings of the RCC” after seeing where those teachings lead.

Roland,
Benedict understands it pretty much like I’ve said. He’s stated it many, many times over the past several decades.
Most of the people who paint a more negative view of Vatican II are people who aren’t very well-versed in Catholic theology, are blind Benedict-haters, or both. Mine is the pretty standard interpretation that you’ll find just about any theology professor affirming.

Nate W,
I appreciate your taking the time to explain this. I’m always eager to gain a more clear understanding of the finer points of theologies/religions outside of my purview, and as I’m sure you can appreciate, it is so often difficult to separate wheat from chaff. But I know a well researched argument when I hear one. So thanks, truly.
For what its worth, I stand by my original statement. I have heard expressed from so many who claim (of course) to be an authority the sentiments that I described in my original post. And I do find said position absolutely astounding. The next time I am subjected to such a diatribe I’ll do my best to present your position as I have come to understand it.

The Jesuits were the RCC priests whose emphasis are on the brains. You cannot be a Jesuit if you are not a priest AND you do not hold at least a Masters degree.
The Jesuits being on the “rebel” side made me wonder why were they castigated by the Big Man as such. Could it be that they were enlightened on some parts of their (and also my former) religious tradition that they found not logical to follow?

The following link seems relevant to the Pope’s position on salvation outside the RCC.
“In a 1964 sermon, the Catholic priest who later became pope discussed whether there is salvation outside the Church.”
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20936_1.html

wt, interesting article. That sounds like a more reasonable Rat than the more recent PB. And let us not forget that’s been a long time. If he still feels that way he should make it clear.

Nnmns,
That “more reasonable Rat” is no different from the “more recent PB.” His more recent affirmations of Catholic doctrine do not contradict what he has said in the past. The shift in tone is a result of meeting different challenges–the challenge today is that an increasing number of Christian leaders are downplaying the essential role of Christ in salvation, so Benedict has lately had to put the most stress on countering that tendency. That doesn’t contradict the old stuff, though. His position on salvation, like that of most major tradition-oriented theologians, is far more nuanced than most outside observers ever seem to want to realize.
Keep in mind that Benedict as a traditionalist is a far cry from being some kind of fundamentalist reactionary. He’s theologically part of the broad sensibility known as “ressourcement”, or “la nouvelle theologie,” which is fundamentally working out a very progressive kind of traditionalism. Benedict’s theology is far too radical for most Catholic fundamentalists, and it’s important never to judge him by looking at them.

By the way, just go read a bit about Benedict on fundamentalist (Catholic or Protestant) websites of forums. He gets trashed by them all the time for denying that denying that Christ is necessary for salvation. This just goes to show that the Pope speaks with more nuance than many realize, and people on either side of him tend to read their own fears into his works.

GEE! George, Gotta problem with the Jesuits?
“And many of them are homosexuals”. (George)
What the heck does that have to do with anything? And there aren’t homosexuals anywhere else in the church??
If they are causing a bit of havoic with in the RCC, more power to them.

Nate, if PB still thinks (the totally silly idea of) “salvation” is available outside the RCC and outside Christianity he should explain those beliefs. I’d guess most people don’t think he feels that way at all and I don’t think he’s making it any more likely they would when he talks about “the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as a means of salvation”
PB is a remarkably bad communicator and that’s a message the world should hear (not that it would necessarily pay any attention).

Just look at Dominus Iesus and other recent documents. The message is still there, and it hasn’t changed all that much.
For most Benedict critics I’ve encountered, the clearest statement in the world wouldn’t make much difference, anyway. Many people have been convinced from the beginning that Ratzinger is a regressive fundamentalist, and they’re going to go on believing that unless he becomes a full-fledged liberal. Countless times I’ve run across people criticism this or that of his statements, who admit a few minutes later that they’ve never even read it, except for a few lines they might have seen in a press release. It’s hard to be a good communicator when many people aren’t even listening.

Hey, for those that actually want to learn the REAL teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and not all that urban legend and rumor that seems to prevail around here, go to this link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
That will take you to the online edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nate W has done a wonderful job of explaining things, but if you wish to know more in greater detail, then go there. No “secrets”, just truth can be found there.