Dominus Iesus Redux
Pope Benedict has been annoying Protestants again. This time, he's given his approval to which essentially reaffirms the key points of the controversial millenium year declaration "". The document describes non-Catholic Christian denominations as merely "ecclesial communities" rather than "churches". The Reformed world fired back with decidely undiplomatic language. The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, for example, said the document 鈥渕akes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the Reformed family and other families of the church鈥. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland's spokesman said his church could simply reply by reaffirming its historic view that the Catholic Church is "in error", but then wondered aloud where this kind of theological tit-for-tat would get anyone. The Church of Ireland's Archbishop of Dublin told Patsy McGarry of the Irish Times that his church enjoyed full apostolic succession -- which is the ecclesiastical equivalent of saying, "Take that!" Not a good day for Catholic-Protestant relations. It's ecumenism as a gunfight.
But there are deeper questions involved in this day-long theological skirmish: What exactly is "the church"? How should we define this mysterious entity? Traditionally, the criteria are said to be "one, holy, catholic and apostolic". But different churches understand those criteria in different ways. Reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries argued that the church existed where the word of God was rightly proclaimed and the sacraments were properly administered. Some revised this definition to include church discipline. But even here there is room for disagreement: Protestants disagree among themselves about what constitutes the proclamation of the "gospel", the number of sacraments (and how they are to be understood) divides Christians across the world; and churches approach "discipline", "leadership" and "authority" in widely differing ways. Is the Salvation Army a church? This is a church without sacraments, so presumably John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, would have serious trouble recognising it as such. Yet many others outside the Salvationist movement have no qualms in recognising -- and celebrating -- their common fellowship with that "church".
Perhaps a church is like an elephant -- impossible to define, but you know one when you see one?
Comments
What do Protestants expect the Holy Father to do? He has to be true to His own theological beliefs. He is part of a tradition and that tradition links the Church to the Apostles. The Supreme Pontiff by tradition is the successor of St Peter, the rock upon which the Church is buillt. Pope Benedict didn't invent this situation: He is merely the Holy Spirit's chosen One, the vicar of Christ on earth, given the task of upholding the Tradition of God.
Protestants are not "outside" the church. They are "separated Brethren" according to Vatican II. This means they are Christians and they are loved by God. They have callings and vocations, as do all Christians, and they are members of Christian communities.
Those Christian communities are in various degrees "churches". Those which have the sacraments, apostolic succession, etc., are closer to the church of God than those that lack these features.
Thus, the table of True Church is something like this:
1. The Holy Roman Catholic Church
2. The Orthodox Communion
3. The Anglican Communion
4. The Reformed "family"
5. Congregationalist and other individual bodies (e.g., "house churches")
6. Communities which have no sacraments at all
Absolute magic!!
That list just about says it all! LOL Madness. Whay cant christians define church as those who follow christ. end of story.
Becuse it is written!!
For an example of a truly wonderful church see
[Edited - some offensive material removed]
There is no basis to write of the Protestant Church as not being a church, Martin Luther spoke very wisely when he wrote, 鈥淚 know that the papacy is none other than the kingdom of Babylon . . . but thankfully the True Christian Church is built upon the Rock, the Chief corner stone, the Lord Jesus Christ, who came to seek and to save the lost."
Bill
You and pro-life catholic seem to have a problem - couldn't you just get together and sort this all out and spare the rest of us your nonsense? Do you really think your god cares how you worship him?
Scribe- yes it is written and it is muddled thinking like that which suggests clearly to me that what was written was done so by mere humans, devoid of any godly tendencies!
Its a preposterous position to take, but I love to see things like this happening. Christians squabbling over complete and utter crap! Keep it up so the rest of us can laugh!!!!!!!
REF: #7
"Those who worship GOD must worship in spirit and truth."
"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him."
We really haven't had a good knock down drag out religious war in Europe for a few centuries now and it looks as though the time has come. You really can't call the troubles in NI a war, it was more of a minor skirmish, a mere nuissance as wars go. Tragic for the victims and their families but not truely earthshaking historywise. Why should Islam be the only major religion undergoing a rift. So what would such a war do for the Anglican church, would it reunite temporarily to fight a common enemy or would one side take the Pope as an ally against the other? It's a funny thing about the Anglican church, as I understood it, Henry VIII created it because he couldn't get a divorce or an annulment from the Church in Rome but he needed a male heir to the throne of England. Wasn't the Anglican Church originally pretty much like the Catholic Church at least in religious doctrine? Now all we need to do is get the Jews fighting amongst themselves over their theology. As I understand it, in a way they already have and for a very long time.
Bill please avoid using sectarian language here. That's hardly christian is it?
David
Far be it for me - but...
The papal language is pretty sectarian too - surely?
Well I've been having some trouble posting comments, but in the event this gets through, it's worth noting that most religious communities regard their own community as having the only access to full truth: Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS, many Protestants would hold that the RC church are not a true Christian church, Islam, etc. The Pope isn't doing anything but affirming what his church has always believed: while I disagree with the reasoning behind that, who dare to question the Pope? He's the Pope, for crying out loud.
I wonder if this the first time comments to this blog have had to be edited to remove offensive remarks?
Are people surprised the said comments were posted by a believer?
OK, here's a theological question for you armchair preachers out there. It seems to me from what I've read and heard in the media that JK Robling is likely going to kill off Harry Potter at the end of the final book in the series. So here's my question; do the souls of good witches go to heaven? Before you say there are no such thing as witches, the bible doesn't agree. Ob was the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28 in the old testament and both Catholics and Anglicans believed in them and were frightened by them. So what's the answer? Does Harry Potter go to heaven or hell?
Hell, Mark. He's an abominable little boy who more richly deserves the wrath of hellfire than almost anyone else: consider the millions of other children he's led into hell through infiltrating their lives with witchcraft. He deserves to burn.
Very interesting John Wright #16 but what do you REALLY think??? Any other opinions? :-)
Unlikely to happen too often but I agree with David from Oxford in post 3.
A quick scan through the book of acts will see a very simple church which believed in Christ, worshipped often in homes, worshipped, prayed etc etc.
A cheque for 拢1000 to the first person who can spot the following words;-
mass
excommunication
pope
dogma
"tradition" placed on an equal par with scripture
praying to saints
"Roman Catholic"
Peter visiting Rome...
Holy days
Holy places
also....
Orange Order
King Billy
Orange Sash
Protestant(ism)
Reformed....
Sinner's prayer
The four spiritual laws
Parading
Protestant "saints"
Fundamentalism
Evangelical
I dont have any problem with a believer belonging to any denomination but I do ask questions if they cant see the difference between human tradition and holy scripture.
Money and power can corrupt human nature no matter in what milieu.
PB
Why should it bother Protestants that Pope Benedict doesn't consider protestant denominations to be churches? Which pope ever has? I doubt whether any will. But whether they do or not is beside the point. Since when has the pope's definition of "church" mattered one whit? Jesus defined the "church" as "two or three gathered together in his name". That is the definition that counts. That is the only one that matters. Any gathering of more than one believer can BE church, whatever the pope says.
The church is simply made up of people who believe in God and yes the Bible.People who have given over their lives to follow Jesus and his teaching.The Church is often seen best in the quiet caring and thoughtful people of God and seen at it's worst by those who shout and scream Hell and Damnation or we are right and everybody else is wrong!
Well, *I* think Benny looks very sexy in his red cowboy hat.
Herr Ratzinger strikes again. It's almost as if Hannibal Lecter decided to do stand up comedy. My Church is real and your's is not, so there!. This is a case of bald men comb fighting.
Herr Ratzinger is the same man who issued such gems as:
the anti-christ may be an environmentalist/pacifist.
The fires of Hell are REAL!
Criticising the Pope is TERRORISM!
And last but not least:
christianity was not imposed on the natives of South America. Ratz claimed they were secretly wishing for it (and presumably smallpox, measles and VD).
All organised religionism is mad and we will be a lot better off when the human race grows out of it.
All churches are not and cannot be the same, simply because all cannot be right when they have obvious fundamental agreements. The question is one of AUTHORITY. To whom did Jesus give the authortiy to bind and unbind? And how has that authority been passed on? And who gave us the Bible as we know it today? And which church corresponds mostly closely with the teachings of the early Church Fathers? A thorough and honest look at these questions usulally leads people into the Catholic Church. Speaks for itself, doesn麓t it ...
Maria- A crafty and very selective way to define church. Would it not be truer that the church refers to Christ's original purpose of the "whosoever believes"? Of course you don't think so because you're clearly a Roman Catholic. :-)
Might be a crafty and select way to define the church, John, and I might be Catholic??? That is only a guess on your part. And your remark does not address the very fundamemntal issues raised or answer the questions posed. And isn麓t it strange that the Catholic Church - a has survived 2,000 years of turbulent history and that the present Pope celebrates Mass over the tomb of St. Peter: "on this rock I shall build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall never overcome it" ... Coincidence?
Not coincidence, Maria, but purely the advantage of circumstance. Isn't it interesting that, of the huge variety of original Christian groups that emerged in the years after the life of Jesus Christ, the one that was most successful was the one best placed to spread Christianity; in the seat of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church?
I see you neatly avoided telling me whether or not you're a Roman Catholic. I think the only person who'd be arguing as you are would be a member of the RCC. I'm merely pointing out the selective nature of how you've chosen to define 'church'. You prefer to hinge the definition of 'church' on that of authority (the lineage of bishops etc.) because you're a RC. But there are definitions that come easier by relying on "those who know me", "whosoever believes" and much more - the reason you prefer the definition relying upon 'authority' is because you have prejudged the issue based upon your Roman Catholicism. :-)
I have no time for an online discussion; John, and whether or not I麓m a Catholic has nothing to do with the issue. Even an atheist friend of mine can see that the Protestant position does not hold when it comes to authority and interpreting - as he did when posing the question of interpretation: how do we know which truth is true, if indeed any is true? Sole Scriptura refutes itself as it cannot be found explicitly anywhere in the Bible, and Acts 15 clearly gives the framework still used by the Catholc church today when deciding difficult issues.
Maria- I love it. You're obviously way busier than me and don't have time to discuss it, but you've got just enough time to throw some junk theology at me on the way out the door. Beautiful. Have a good weekend.