VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In a brief document, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated churches and communities.
Touching an ecumenical sore point, the document said some of the separated Christian communities, such as Protestant communities, should not properly be called "churches" according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist.
The Vatican released the text July 10. Titled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," it was signed by U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI before publication.
In a cover letter, Cardinal Levada asked the world's bishops to do all they can to promote and present the document to the wider public.
The text was the latest chapter in a long-simmering discussion on what the Second Vatican Council intended when it stated that the church founded by Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church," but that elements of "sanctification and truth" are found outside the Catholic Church's visible confines.
The related discussion over the term "churches" surfaced publicly in 2000, when the doctrinal congregation -- then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict -- said the term "sister churches" was being misused in ecumenical dialogue.
In a format of five questions and answers, the new document stated that Vatican II did not change Catholic doctrine on the church. It said use of the phrase "subsists in" was intended to show that all the elements instituted by Christ endure in the Catholic Church.
The sanctifying elements that exist outside the structure of the Catholic Church can be used as instruments of salvation, but their value derives from the "fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church," it said, quoting from Vatican II's "Decree on Ecumenism."
The text said the Second Vatican Council used the term "church" in reference to Orthodox churches because, although separated from the Catholic Church, they have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, they "lack something in their condition as particular churches" because they are not in union with the pope, it said.
The Christian communities born out of the Reformation, on the other hand, do not enjoy apostolic succession -- the unbroken succession of bishops going back to St. Peter -- and therefore "cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'churches' in the proper sense," it said.
In his cover letter, Cardinal Levada said the document came in response to critical reactions to the teaching of "Dominus Iesus," another doctrinal congregation document of 2000, which said the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation, and to ongoing confusion over interpretations of the phrase "subsists in."
An authoritative commentary published July 10 in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said the congregation had acted to protect the unity and uniqueness of the church. The document, the commentary said, took aim at the notion that the "church of Christ" was "the sum total of the churches or the ecclesial communities" or that it exists only as a future goal.
"If this were the case, the church of Christ would not any longer exist in history, or would exist only in some ideal form emerging either through some future convergence or through the reunification of the diverse sister churches," it said.
What Vatican II intended was to recognize ecclesial elements in non-Catholic communities, it said.
"It does not follow that the identification of the church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a 'churchless void,'" it said.
The council's wording does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard itself as the one true church of Christ but that it recognizes that true ecclesial realities exist beyond its own visible boundaries, it said.
Regarding the doctrinal congregation's insistence that communities originating from the Reformation are not churches, the article said:
"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress in the communities concerned and even among some Catholics, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'church' could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."
The commentary said that, at first glance, Catholic ecumenism might seem somewhat paradoxical, because it holds that the Catholic Church has the "fullness" of the means for salvation, but recognizes the value of elements in other churches.
The Catholic Church's teaching, it said, is that the fullness of the church "already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners."
U.S. Dominican Father J. Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation, said the document does not call into question Pope Benedict's pledge to work for ecumenical progress.
"The church is not backtracking on its ecumenical commitment. But ... it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity," he told Vatican Radio.
Father Di Noia said the document touches on a very important experiential point: that when people go into a Catholic church and participate in Mass, the sacraments and everything else that goes on there, they will find "everything that Christ intended the church to be."
END
--- Inis do Mháire i gcógar é,
is inseoidh Mháire dó phóbal é.
Tell it to Mary in a whisper,
and Mary will tell it to the parish.
-Irish Proverb
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church Thanks for posting this CatholicAngel. There is always confusion on this issue and hurt feelings among our Protestant brothers and sisters because of that. I think this document makes the Church's position clear (again).
But I fear that controversy over the technical term "church" will continue. Formal use of the word "church" in Catholic teaching is intimately linked to historical and visible apostolic succession and valid ordination in the Catholic Church's view. That's the key to understanding this.
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church
quote:
...such as Protestant communities, should not properly be called "churches" according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist.
The Vatican does not define language.
This document is similiar to some Evangelical Christians saying the Vatican and Roman Catholicism is not Christian because of its adoration, prayers, visions, and ever-virginity of Mary - aka "Mary Cult". I go to church, its a Protestant church, and I don't play church semantic games.
--- Guilty people wear pumpkins for Landmine Awareness Day.
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church Hi Knux,
It's not a semantic game. In fact, it's meant to prevent semantic games and misunderstanding. For example, it helps explain why the Catholic Church would officially recognize a Greek Orthodox bishop and not an Episcopalian female bishop, even though it recognizes that both are part of the mystical body of Christ and Christians.
The Catholic Church uses the word "church" in official documents to indicate recognizable apostolic succession and valid ordination and all it means in terms of the Eucharist.
However, in common usage, we use it to mean any community of believers. Because of this, there is the potential for confusion when talking with other Christians with different views of apostolic succession and the Eucharist. That's why it's important to make the distinction between the formal term "church" in official Catholic documents and the more common (and more loose) use of the term among Christians as a whole.
In Catholic theology, certain terms have a very specific meaning, in spite of how we have come to use the words in the vernacular. The formal use of the word has always been tied to bishops and their diocese in Catholic theology and governance. The Vatican is merely reiterating the formal historical definition of the term and clarifying it.
I understand how it can be offensive, because the Protestant use of the word "church" is much less restrictive.
The reason I don't see it as equivalent to some Fundamentalists saying "Catholics aren't Christian" is because this document still recognizes that Protestants are Christian, even if they are not members of formal "churches" with visible apostolic succession. Catholic teaching still recognizes members of independent "house churches" and hierarchical "national churches" (e.g., the Anglican community) as fully Christian.
The document is reiterating that the Catholic Church recognizes many people are Christian, even if they aren't members of a formal ecclesiastic community with apostolic succession, valid ordination, and the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharistic Table (i.e., what the Catholic Church has always formally called a "church" in its documents).
If I were in your place, I would feel the same way you do.
But not calling Protestant churches formal churches is not meant to insult or demean your faith or you as fellow Christians at all. It's meant to clarify our relationship as Christians of different faith traditions and communities so that we can work towards true unity.
For Catholics, the center of the formal use of the word "church" is the Eucharist. The Catholic Eucharistic Celebration is based on valid ordination, which has its basis in valid apostolic succession.
It's a clarification of how the Catholic Church has always formally defined the word "church" so that we are all clear on what the official documents mean.
The bottom line is that even if official Catholic Church documents do not refer to Protestant faith communities as "churches", it doesn't change the fact that Protestants are still our brothers and sisters in Christ through the common baptism of all Christians.
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church
quote:
this document still recognizes that Protestants are Christian, even if they are not members of formal "churches" with visible apostolic succession.
That's not what I got out of it. It says:
quote:
The Christian communities born out of the Reformation, on the other hand, do not enjoy apostolic succession -- the unbroken succession of bishops going back to St. Peter -- and therefore "cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'churches' in the proper sense,"
Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of a requirement of this claim in order to be considered a "church in the proper sense."
quote:
But not calling Protestant churches formal churches is not meant to insult or demean your faith or you as fellow Christians at all. It's meant to clarify our relationship as Christians of different faith traditions and communities so that we can work towards true unity.
Under the lordship of the pope, right? I don't think so. There is one mediator between God and man, and that's Jesus Christ.
quote:
In his cover letter, Cardinal Levada said the document came in response to critical reactions to the teaching of "Dominus Iesus," another doctrinal congregation document of 2000, which said the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation, and to ongoing confusion over interpretations of the phrase "subsists in."
What? Sounds like he's saying that we Protestants are not saved then, and if we're not saved, we're not Christian.
Jesus never said that. As a matter of fact, He said quite the opposite.
Mark 9:39-41
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
Luke 9:49-50
"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."
I'll just take Jesus at His Word, and no one is going to take His place of authority.
Hey! Where's my elephant?
Maybe I forgot him in my living room....
--- I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church I know I've been thought of as 'wishy washy' these days and trying to ignore things that have been said about me in the not so distant past... I tend to get caught up in people's opinions, bad habit. The more I learn about what I should have learned the first time around the more everything makes sense. There's so much 'self interpretation' of the Bible that goes on in the Protestant circle. I'm still letting things sink in here... but I remember hearing something to the gist of whatever the scripture speaks to you... The problem with that there's so many different interpretations of things going around. A verse can mean one thing to one person and then something totally different to someone else... verses taken out of context and tailored to fit our own situations. It almost seems like trying to turn the Bible into a fortune cookie in a way, I don't think that's how it was meant to be.
I even go back a few months or more... I forget now but definitely before I came here... trying to explain I know I'm still getting walked through things from my past. So often I've always been one to just leave, run, get away... I did have to do that when I was 20 but I don't need to be running anymore, be not afraid. I kept going back to running the race... yet so many were trying to tell me 'but He makes all things new' 'changed in an instant' etc etc... as if because I haven't quite gotten over old tapes that took 20 years to get ingrained in me I'm therefore in error or perhaps not really saved because I haven't been changed in an instant and all the rest. I'm not making excuses for my own bad behavior, I sure had a lot of it... but why would scripture say 'running the race' and not 'run your quick sprint and sit on your laurels'? I'm one that often gets led back to God's love for me because I truthfully had warped concepts of love shown to me as a kid but God's love isn't warped... I know that.
I know what I'm trying to say and I may be failing at it miserably. I never remember all the contradicting opinions on scripture in Catholic churches.
Last edited by HasahZ, 7/12/2007, 8:37 am
--- ...Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Amen
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church Hi Mel,
Let's not get hung up on terminology. From what I understand of your faith tradition, "church" means simply a community of Christians. I also use "church" to mean that in everyday conversation.
But official Catholic Church documents use the term as in "particular churches" to mean Christian communities of apostolic succession (meaning they have validly ordained bishops). Not recognizing your church as a "particular church" (a technical term in Catholic teaching) does not mean the Catholic Church doesn't recognize you as Christian. Said another way, the Church recognizes that there are true believers in Christ who are not members of Christian faith communities that have a visible and recognizable apostolic succession. Most Protestant "churches" that I am aware of make no claim to apostolic succession. The Anglican communion is the only exception that I'm aware of and I can understand why they would be upset if they weren't recognized as a "church" under this specific terminology. Instead, official Catholic Church documents use the term "ecclesiastical communities" for Protestant churches.
This difference in terminology says nothing about Protestant faith communities' (or "churches," if you prefer) Christianity. The Catholic Church considers all peoples baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and who are believers in the God-man Jesus Christ as the Saviour of humanity, to be Christian.
I think you misunderstand if you think that document is saying that Protestants aren't saved. Where does it say that? The part you quoted doesn't say that. You're inadvertantly reading into it.
I know you have a problem with the papacy. But I don't see it as being "under the lordship" or that the Pope is a mediator replacing Christ. God forbid! I'm not sure where you got that impression from, but it's not correct. The pope is really the chief pastor of the Universal Church. With that role given to him by Christ comes a certain amount of authority and a charism from the Holy Spirit. That authority is very specific and limited. That's all.
I'm sure you don't see your pastor as replacing Christ, even though you may look upon him as having teaching authority in your church. Any teaching authority your pastor would have, any calling he has, could only come from Christ. We can discuss this in another thread if you like, too.
You're getting a small piece of Catholic teaching from an article about a document that is based on at least two previous documents.
If you want to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches about Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, I recommend the following official Church documents (in this order).
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church Also, a crucial point in all these documents is a kind of "umbrella" view of the Church and of salvation.
No one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. That does not mean that non-Catholics can't be saved. It means that, if someone is truly saved, they are part of the Church. Everyone in Heaven is part of the Catholic Church. That does not mean that all those people were officially Catholics when they lived on earth. Oh, and Melchizedek, for a "proof text," it's "Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." That pretty much gives the Apostles, and their successors, _carte blanche_.
Read Karl Rahner's _The Spirit of Catholicism_, a 1930s book that got censored by the Holy Office but anticipated a lot of Vatican II theology.
What the Catholic Church teaches is that your Protestant "community" has no power or authority to give you salvific grace. Of course, as a Protestant, you (at least should) believe the same thing.
We believe Jesus established the Church as the means of dispensing His grace--the "ordinary" means. What Vatican II developed, and this document re-emphasizes, is the idea that the Church can extend that salvific grace through schismatic groups like the Society of St. Pius X or the Eastern Orthodox, or even heretical groups with no apostolice succession, like Protestants.
The document, and Vatican II, emphasize--contrary to previous understood Catholic teaching--that the Pope is the "Holy Father" not just of the Catholic Church but of the entire world.
In that sense, this is a very progressive document, just as the _motu proprio_ is actually a progressive document, applying some Vatican II reforms to the 1962 missal.
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church
quote:
Most Protestant "churches" that I am aware of make no claim to apostolic succession
I don't understand the importance of "apostolic succession." I can't find anything in the Bible on that, and the Roman Catholic apostolic succession has been disputed since it first came up. It's a non-issue for me.
quote:
for a "proof text," it's "Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." That pretty much gives the Apostles, and their successors, _carte blanche_.
Where's the part that says it's passed to any successors?
quote:
But I don't see it as being "under the lordship" or that the Pope is a mediator replacing Christ. God forbid! I'm not sure where you got that impression from, but it's not correct. The pope is really the chief pastor of the Universal Church. With that role given to him by Christ comes a certain amount of authority and a charism from the Holy Spirit.
I get the impression from the titles he uses, like this one:
quote:
the Pope is the "Holy Father" not just of the Catholic Church but of the entire world.
I'm not really sure why Protestants are upset by this, as we don't believe the pope has any special authority.
Where's my elephant?!
--- I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
Re: Vatican reaffirms the Catholic Church is the one true church Thanks for the response Mel.
quote:
I don't understand the importance of "apostolic succession." I can't find anything in the Bible on that, and the Roman Catholic apostolic succession has been disputed since it first came up. It's a non-issue for me.
From what I know of most Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, I always thought apostolic succession of their church was a non-issue, just like you said. If you like, I can start a thread on why we Catholic Christians (and the Orthodox churches and to some extent the Anglicans) see apostolic succession as an essential mark of Christ's Church. We see it as Scriptural and historical. You may not agree with it, but we might understand each other's position better after a good discussion about that.
quote:
I get the impression from the titles he uses, like this one:
I see and better understand where you're coming from. Thanks. The titles need to be understood in light of what the Church teaches about the Pope. No Catholic I ever met understands the term "Holy Father" to mean the Pope is equal to God (e.g., where Luke 11:13 refers to God). But many Protestants I have met do. The difference might be the knowledge base we have about the Pope's authority and his role in the Church when we hear that term.
For example, when a Brit calls a nobleman "my lord" it doesn't mean that they are equal to "Our Lord" Jesus Christ.
This link from Wikianswers might be a good place to start a discussion on the term "Holy Father" for the Pope. It has a basic resposne to the question with common Protestant objections added.
quote:
I'm not really sure why Protestants are upset by this, as we don't believe the pope has any special authority.
I agree. But I can also see how some can find it offensive, or even a blow to ecumenical talks. But I think that's because their definition of "church" and what it means is different than how the pope is using the word in that official document.
Also, don't forget the Catholic Church has been dialoguing with the Orthodox churches for centuries, and the "diplomatic" language and understandings that have been developed and used cannot be thrown out when the Church dialogues with Protestant Christians.
