Skip to main content

Surprise! The Pope is a Catholic!


Is anyone really surprised? The Vatican has come out and restated that the one true Church on earth subsists in the Catholic Church.
Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community" (5), that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. (6) "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him" (7).

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church (8), in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. (9) Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church. (10)

Related Link: Summer Assignment: Restudy the Doctrine of the Church
There are statements, clarifying the position of Orthodox Churches.
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds" (13), they merit the title of "particular or local Churches" (14), and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches (15).

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature" (16). However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches (17).

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history (18).
And on Protestant "Churches", which cannot be properly called "Churches".
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).
One Anglican Bishop is not offended. One of many, hopefully.
Anglican bishop Robert Forsyth, of Sydney — the city where Catholics and Anglicans are regarded as strict — said Anglicans were not offended.

''It means the Pope is a Catholic, actually," Bishop Forsyth said.

"Of course, they would think that — we think they're a bit dodgy, too, but we've come a long way from saying the Pope is the antichrist.

Related Link : Pope is Catholic, but is not the antichrist
When it comes down to it, if you are not Catholic, why should you care what the Catholic Church thinks about itself? The Catholic Church over it's two thousand year history has always said it was the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that to be true, no one's going to come after you with a rosary and force you to believe.

On a related matter, I've been exercising my apologetics brain on A Servant's Thoughts recently. I'm still a bit of novice when it comes to doing so, so don't expect too much. I'm not finished yet either, just having a break for an indeterminate period of time. I'm regarding the whole process more as something for myself as a means to find the gaps in my knowledge.

Comments

  1. I find it interesting that one of the most frostier partners of Rome thinks the document perfectly acceptable!

    http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3311

    And the reason is fine to: honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have no real issue with this statement Lucyna, obviously I don't agree with Papal claims to supremacy.

    A point worth considering

    Saint Peter also founded the Church in Antioch and so the Antiochian Orthodox Church like Rome traces its apostolic succession from Saint Peter and the arguments the Catholic Church uses for Papal supremacy could also be used by the Patriarchs of Antioch to claim their supremacy?

    Your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrei, as I understand it, the Church has never been about places, the authority has always been vested in people. Places are useful in that they are needed in order for people to go there, but, no power is given to the place itself.

    So, it all comes down to a couple of things. 1) Whether or not you believe that Peter was given the authority by Christ to lead his Church, and 2) Whether or not you believe that authority could be passed down.

    At this point, because I don't actually know what the Orthodox position is on those two points, I can't really continue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Lucyna the answer to 2) is easy and it is yes, it describes the Apostolic succession and in the document you linked it is quite clearly stated that the Catholic Church considers the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches valid, our Priests and Bishops properly ordained and the holy mysteries (sacraments valid) - as do the Orthodox towards the Catholic apostolic succession (from Peter).

    However the different Orthodox churches were founded by other apostles rather than Peter. So for example St Andrew founded the Church in Byzantium (now Constantinople) and therefore the Patriarch of Constantinople is a successor of St Andrew the first called rather than Peter.

    As for the first point I do believe Peter was the senior amongst the Apostles but that did not give him authority over them.

    It is this issue that has divided us sadly.

    Here is the relevant section from your link

    Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

    Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds" (13), they merit the title of "particular or local Churches" (14), and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches (15).

    "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature" (16). However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches (17).

    On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history (18).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lucyna, you said...
    The Catholic Church over it's two thousand year history has always said it was the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that to be true, no one's going to come after you with a rosary and force you to believe.

    In the context of the Church's long history, I consider this recent improvement to be highly commendable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm, as I was reading Lucynas post I was wondering what Andrei would be thinking if he was reading this as well. Sure enough he chirped in, but with the sensible contribution regular blog-folk would expect of him. Methinks now, on a larger scale, that isn't it about time the two churches got back together again. I seriously doubt the finer details of difference really matter. The Gospels speak for themselves. I hear that that there have been slight moves in this direction already (didn't the Pope give some key artefacts backs to the Eastern church in Athens recently?) although I also admit I am somewhat ignorant to the finer aspects of the Eastern Church.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lucyna: If you don't believe that to be true, no one's going to come after you with a rosary and force you to believe.

    Roma semper idem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. hMM, HOW INTERESTING.

    Apparently it is not appropriate to quote the bible on this site. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A warning to commenters. If you choose inappropriate names, including blasphemous ones, your comments will be deleted. So far, I have only deleted one with an inappropriate name, so you should know who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Surprise surprise, lucyna doesn't like being reminded we are all God's children. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Assuming facts not in evidence. And if you do not choose a different name, I will delete future comments with that name.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jesus is an amazingly common name amongst hispanics; will you delete any hispanic who tries to post under his own name?

    And I assume you have heard of Leonard Cohen and get the reference?

    But no, of course not, he deosn't sing in Latin, does he?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Catholic Church over it's two thousand year history has always said it was the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that to be true, no one's going to come after you with a rosary and force you to believe.

    They used to before the Reformation, and probably would do so again if given the chance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Does that mean I can mount a campaign of cease and desist letters in latin against the baptists down the road ?

    On a more serious note, this seems a bit of a sad move. Reading Lucayna's post from the article, I can see that its probably a perfectly justifiable move from the Church's theological standpoint and also that the language of Vatican 2 as to other Christian groups was never as wide as assumed.

    All the same, while its a justifiable move to make I can't help but feel it may hurt some of the outreach and inter-Church dialogue that's going on because it looks like its questioning the existence of other churches.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's our blog, and we reserve the right to delete comments that we feel are meant solely to inflame. The nom-de-plume chosen PLUS the context of the comment can be a sure fire way to have a comment removed.

    You can try to make out that this proves whatever your particular fantasy happens to be, but there's a good chance you are simply being unnecessarily rude or disrespectful in making your point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Perhaps sonofman should remember one of the lines following "Jesus was a sailor" in the Leonard Cohen song, Zen:
    "... he sank beneath your wisdom like a stone..."
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Egads, who let all the fruitbats out?

    ReplyDelete
  19. LOL KG, not you....

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's a relief, Tips. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.