The Pope's Decree

[D28guy]

Mistake edited by me.

Mike

 

[BobRyan]

Is this the document that the OP was referring to?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

CA

Looks like it to me.

Notice question 5 on that link

FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?​

RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.​

Footnote 20 (link works above) goes to this document
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Article 4 in that document states in bold terms -- non-RCC is "nonChurch".

 

[BobRyan]

Found at:​

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

​

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH​

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51


The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession 53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.

54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.

56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

57 17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.

59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

60 On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. 62

Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

 

[Matt Black]

Like I said, this isn't news; all that has happened is that cuddly Papa Benny has resumed his tougher alter ego Cardinal Rottweiller.

 

[bound]

Like I said, this isn't news; all that has happened is that cuddly Papa Benny has resumed his tougher alter ego Cardinal Rottweiller.

Matt,

Could someone post the 'entire' statement from the Roman Catholic Church for us? Thanks.

BTW, here is a responds by a Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church...

Bishop Hilarion, the orthodox bishop of Vienna and Austria, and the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, spoke with ZENIT about the document released Tuesday by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

--<snip>--

Bishop Alfeev acknowledged that the document's explanation of the Church, and precisely that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, is an idea that the Orthodox do not accept.

"The distinction between 'subsists' and 'is present and operative' is probably meaningful from the point of view of Latin theological tradition, but it makes not much sense for an Orthodox theologian," he said.

"For us," Bishop Alfeev explained, "'to subsist' means precisely 'to be present and to be operative,' and we believe that the Church of Christ subsists, is present and is operative in the Orthodox Church."

http://www.zenit.org/article-20104?l=english

 

[BobRyan]

Matt,

Could someone post the 'entire' statement from the Roman Catholic Church for us? Thanks.

Click on the link already given ---


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...tiones_en.html

 

[Matt Black]

Bound, you might also want to read here - dated June 29 2007

Interestingly, the Anglican Church and Lutherans (mostly) have recognised each other in the Porvoo Declaration and the Orthodox and Anglicans seem to have no difficulty with mutual recognition:-

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/jerusalem.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/cyprus.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/greece.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/alexandria.html

 

[bound]

Bound, you might also want to read here - dated June 29 2007

Interestingly, the Anglican Church and Lutherans (mostly) have recognised each other in the Porvoo Declaration and the Orthodox and Anglicans seem to have no difficulty with mutual recognition:-

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/jerusalem.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/cyprus.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/greece.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/alexandria.html

Salve Mr. Black,

This may well have 'been' the standing of the Orthodox Bishops in the 1920's and 1930's but such has transpired in the preceding decades as to call these positions into question. I do not have a current statement of the Orthodox Bishops concerning the Anglican Communion but I dare say that referencing such 'dated' positions should be considered suspect.

Thank you all for the link. I'm reading it and will offer some points later.

 

[bound]

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy (AP) - Pope Benedict has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches are defective and that other Christian denominations are not true churches.

The conclusion here is that all outside the RCC are not saved.

“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”

This verse null and voids the OP conclusions. A careful study would have not overlooked this critical distinction.

 

[Matt Black]

Salve Mr. Black,

This may well have 'been' the standing of the Orthodox Bishops in the 1920's and 1930's but such has transpired in the preceding decades as to call these positions into question. I do not have a current statement of the Orthodox Bishops concerning the Anglican Communion but I dare say that referencing such 'dated' positions should be considered suspect.

Please reference something more recent then.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You know Matt I am starting to see the similarities


Bretheren - RCC
The candidates should present how they were saved - Baptism certificate
How they accepted Jesus - Confirmation
life before - Confession
How they resolve sins - Penance

It's the same thing just different ways of saying it.

GE:

Mr Chemnitz, it's absolutely true! I can't say a thing.

 

[Rooselk]

I saw this comment today giving a Lutheran perspective:

We ask again: "When did the Pope stop being Catholic?" The Catholic Church has never agreed that the Protestant Churches, particularly Lutheran
Churches, are true churches.

The Catholic Church believes that the church is founded on the office of the
ministry, not the congregation. Therefore those clergy that lack the
Sacrament of Ordination through the laying on of hands, from one generation of
clergy to the next, are not true pastors. Hence congregations are not true
churches without pastors who have the Sacrament of Ordination. These
churches don't even have the true Lord's Supper because their pastors
haven't been zapped by the Pope.

However, Luther and the Confessions point out that the Bible names three
areas where Christ has placed His name, forgiveness of sins, and salvation
and where we can identify the Church. These are called the marks of the
church.

Christ has placed his name on the (1) Scriptures, (2) Baptism, and (3) the
Lord's Supper.

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them."

(1) John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life: and they are they which testify of me."

(2) Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

(3) Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed
it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is
my body."

These are the three marks of the church.

The Lutheran Confessions state:
"[The church] is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is
preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to
the Gospel" (Augsburg Confession Article VII).
"Thank God, [today] a child seven years old knows what the Church is,
namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd.
For the children pray thus: 'I believe in one holy Christian church'"
(Smalcald Articles: Art. XII; Triglot, p. 499).

The Pope believes that he and the clergy are the church. This is called
Sacerdotalism. The Pope believes the church is of the clergy, by the
clergy, and for the clergy. The Bible teaches that the lay people are the
church. The Voters' Assembly calls and commissions clergy and is the final
authority on the Office of the Keys in the local congregation.

 

[bound]

Wasn't John 5:39 a rebuke of the Jews how had the Scriptures and thus 'assumed' (i.e. thought) they possessed eternal life?

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life: and they are they which testify of me."

It doesn't appear this verse establishes the authors intent. Merely possessing the Scriptures doesn't insure eternal life but interpreting them rightly to reveal Jesus as the Christ. Scripture without rightly interpreted is a dead letter with no life in it. It is 'faith in Christ' which brings life not Scripture.

 

[Melanie]

This has always been the RCC teaching......

 

[DHK]

Wasn't John 5:39 a rebuke of the Jews how had the Scriptures and thus 'assumed' (i.e. thought) they possessed eternal life?

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life: and they are they which testify of me."

It doesn't appear this verse establishes the authors intent. Merely possessing the Scriptures doesn't insure eternal life but interpreting them rightly to reveal Jesus as the Christ. Scripture without rightly interpreted is a dead letter with no life in it. It is 'faith in Christ' which brings life not Scripture.

Not necessarily so:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Word of God is a living Word. Some have been saved by reading it and it alone. It alone is able to change lives. The key is to have an open heart, and that is all.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--The RCC does not do as Briony says they do. They have a pre-conceived, "private" interpretation that is forced on all its members by the priests. It is the interpretation of the Magesterium. Believe it or be condemned is their attitude.
The Bible says that this attitude toward the Scriptures condemns them.

 

[bound]

Not necessarily so:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yes, I understand by 'the word of God', the eternal word (i.e. Son of God) to whom all of verse 12 and 13 might apply, but others it of the words, promises, and menaces of God, either foretold by the prophets, or preached by the apostles. All this language is therefore metaphorical, but perfectly well understood by the Jews. In their sacrifices, the Levites made use of a two-edge knife to separate from the victim what was for God, what was for the priests, and what was for the people. Thus in sacrificing sinners to the justice of God, Jesus Christ, like a two-edged knife, will separate what is for God, and what is for man (i.e. whatever is good or evil in the whole of man's conduct). Note in verse 13 the mention of 'his eyes' and 'eyes of him' which makes the suggestion that the 'word of God' in verse 12 is speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ and not Scripture.

The Word of God is a living Word. Some have been saved by reading it and it alone. It alone is able to change lives. The key is to have an open heart, and that is all.

The Word of God is a living 'person' (i.e. Jesus Christ). If you read verse 12 in context it becomes pretty clear that the author is speaking about Jesus Christ specifically and not just Scripture. I can appreciate a argument though but on examination it would appear to be suggesting otherwise than your intended use of the verse.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Now, this verse appears to argue my point for me... let me repeat it here.

Without a proper exegesis (i.e. tradition of interpretation) traceable to the apostles we may fail to discern the message of the Gospel 'unto our own destruction'...

--The RCC does not do as Briony says they do. They have a pre-conceived, "private" interpretation that is forced on all its members by the priests. It is the interpretation of the Magesterium. Believe it or be condemned is their attitude.
The Bible says that this attitude toward the Scriptures condemns them.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in discussing RCC interpretation. What I am interested in discussing is the merit of our 'private' interpretation taught by ourselves every Sunday Morning complete with 'footnotes from scholars' and 'Chain-referencing Systems' which influence one's interpretation of Scripture. Whither a Magisterium or a group of scholars teaching a 'particular' exegesis, it all appears very similar to me (i.e. a concerted effort by individuals to push a particular interpretation).

Old-School Baptist used to allow each member of the congregation to their own means to 'listen' to Scripture and what it spoke to 'them' by the Holy Spirit. In the modern-day I see a lot of pushing of 'particular' exegesi (some Calvinist, some Liberal, etc, etc). I can appreciate the desire to distinguish ourselves from Roman Catholics but it appears the more we try the more we begin to look a lot like them.

 

[DHK]

Old-School Baptist used to allow each member of the congregation to their own means to 'listen' to Scripture and what it spoke to 'them' by the Holy Spirit. In the modern-day I see a lot of pushing of 'particular' exegesi (some Calvinist, some Liberal, etc, etc). I can appreciate the desire to distinguish ourselves from Roman Catholics but it appears the more we try the more we begin to look a lot like them.

I don't know where you go or who you listen to. In our church our people are always challenged to go back and study what has been preached. Make sure that whoever was preaching, was preaching the truths of the Word of God. Don't take anything for granted. Prove all things, the Bible says. Study to show yourselves approved. Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). We encourage Bible Study. And if you disagree come and we will have a Bible study about it. We don't want anyone to be confused.
It is not commentaries, it is the Bible that is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice--not the magesterium, not the Book of Mormon, not any other so-called authority, but the Bible alone is our sole authority.

1 Corinthians 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

The Holy Spirit gives the believer illumination as to what the truth of the Bible is.

 

[bound]

I don't know where you go or who you listen to. In our church our people are always challenged to go back and study what has been preached. Make sure that whoever was preaching, was preaching the truths of the Word of God. Don't take anything for granted. Prove all things, the Bible says. Study to show yourselves approved. Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). We encourage Bible Study. And if you disagree come and we will have a Bible study about it. We don't want anyone to be confused.

It is not commentaries, it is the Bible that is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice--not the magesterium, not the Book of Mormon, not any other so-called authority, but the Bible alone is our sole authority.

Well and good but as I said earlier John 5:39 is a very good example of individuals, who had the Scriptures and studied them, to no avail...

1 Corinthians 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

The Holy Spirit gives the believer illumination as to what the truth of the Bible is.

Gives to the believer... or the Lover of Him? Look at 1 Corinthians 2:9...

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Our Lord and Saviour makes the case, "If God were your Father, you would indeed love me" (John 8:42). Later, he stated, "If you love me, Keep my commandments" (John 14:15.

So, at least in our Lord's perspective the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual things to those whom are obedient to his commandments (i.e. those whom are Children of God). Merely claiming to be 'believers' doesn't necessarily open the mysteries of our faith nor does it yield divine inspiration to anyone's 'proof-texting' as we have seen in this thread. I believe it to be very presumptive to claim divine inspiration especially when the normative interpretation of the text suggest otherwise.

 

[DHK]

So, at least in our Lord's perspective the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual things to those whom are obedient to his commandments (i.e. those whom are Children of God). Merely claiming to be 'believers' doesn't necessarily open the mysteries of our faith nor does it yield divine inspiration to anyone's 'proof-texting' as we have seen in this thread. I believe it to be very presumptive to claim divine inspiration especially when the normative interpretation of the text suggest otherwise.

You are misled. No one has divine inspiration. The Bible is inspired of God, and the Bible alone. No man today can claim inspiration. I said that the Holy Spirit that dwells in every believer can illumine his heart. That is, God gives him understanding as to what God's Word means as opposed to the unsaved person. The Bible says about the unsaved (in that very same context):

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

He cannot receive or understand teh things of the Spirit of God--that is the Word of God. He does not have the Spirit of God to illumine his heart. This is in opposition to what Paul is teaching in verses 11 and 12. The believer does have the Spirit of God which does give him understanding.

 

[bound]

You are misled. No one has divine inspiration. The Bible is inspired of God, and the Bible alone. No man today can claim inspiration. I said that the Holy Spirit that dwells in every believer can illumine his heart.

You are conflating the theological definition of inspiration "a" with "b"...

in·spi·ra·tion: (theological definition)

a. divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.

b. the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.

That is, God gives him understanding as to what God's Word means as opposed to the unsaved person.

God influencing someone's understanding concerning what God's Word means 'is' an example of theological definition 'a' (i.e. see inspiration). If such abilities are not inherent in the individual then it would be a case of inspiration (i.e. divine influence).

The Bible says about the unsaved (in that very same context):

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

He cannot receive or understand the things of the Spirit of God--that is the Word of God. He does not have the Spirit of God to illumine his heart. This is in opposition to what Paul is teaching in verses 11 and 12. The believer does have the Spirit of God which does give him understanding.

You are ignoring the aforementioned text which proceeds 1 Corinthians 2:11-12, 14...

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Corinthians 2:9

My continued point is not everyone who cries Lord and Lord and believes themselves to be "saved" is inspired by the Holy Spirit (note: I am using the word correctly) to interpret the depths of spiritual matters.

The text never mentions 'believers' but 'them that love him'. This would be your own reading into the text. I dare say that anyone who suggestions that they truly love God would be obedient to His Commandments as our Lord suggests, "If God were your Father, you would indeed love me" (John 8:42). Later, he stated, "If you love me, Keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Personally, I would be very skeptical concerning anyone claiming authoritative knowledge of His word except His Eternal Word: Jesus Christ.