The Pope's Decree

Mistake edited by me.

Mike

 

Looks like it to me.

Notice question 5 on that link

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".

 

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

 

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

 

Click on the link already given ---


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

 

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.

 

“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.

 

Please reference something more recent then.

 

GE:

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

 

I saw this comment today giving a Lutheran perspective:

 

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.

 

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

 

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 '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.

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'...

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.

 

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...

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.

 

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.

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).

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.