Pope affirms Catholicism as only way to salvation
Protestant leaders upset by Benedict's Vatican II correction
By Nicole Winfield ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 11, 2007
Protestant leaders upset by Benedict's Vatican II correction
By Nicole Winfield ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 11, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy – Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released yesterday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.
The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders.
The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders.
That's exactly right! I'm a Protestant leader and I'm offering some sharp criticism myself right now! Nice move Mr. Pope dude. That's just what the non-Christian world wants to hear. Hmm, and I wonder why there is so much division in the church? I wonder why the non-church attenders out there don't want to start attending. This is certainly one of the reasons why. This is also one of the reasons so many unchurched people today want nothing to do with denominations.
In reality, the only true church is the church of Jesus Christ. Not the Catholic church, not Coastlands Church. Any church that follows the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, recognizes our sin and a need for a savior (who is Jesus) is the true church. The church is the people, not a Catholic or Protestant or a Baptist or a Lutheran. Martin Luther must be rolling over in his grave.
Please God, help us keep our focus on you and not any denominational (or non-denominational) leader. May we stay true to your Word.
19 comments:
Wow, now that truly made my mouth drop! That is unbelievable that the Pope would say that. So many different thoughts come thru my head, but a true believer knows that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, not denomination.
I am speechless and a little worried about the impact that will have on many....
I'm shocked, but at the same time, I'm not. We're in the end times and division is only going to be more common.
Hopefully people (especially Catholics) will recognize how absurd this statement is and start digging into the word, rather than putting their hope into solely the church.
I'm hoping that others are shocked by the Pope's statement as are Jenny and Neil. Thanks guys.
Hi Evan,
Sadly, the pope isn't the only Christian leader guilty of claiming to head the "only real church." There are many such leaders in churches all over the place today.
Honestly, I'm not too concerned about his comments. I think that the watching non-Christian world isn't the least bit surprised - but Jesus can still reach them, in spite of what he said... perhaps even BECAUSE of what he said. I also think this is nothing new, but rather, Pope Benedict simply had the guts to say what a lot of Catholics believe (not all, but many).
I've been in churches recently where the pastors either put down other pastors or other Christians as either not being spiritual enough, not doing "church" right, not having the right type of music, etc. In my mind, that's simply another way of saying that "our way is right, their's is not." I would imagine that you've taken some hits like that with a church like Coastlands.
All in all, the pope is right on one thing - all Christian churches ARE defective, his church included. That's why we need Jesus! :)
Thanks for keeping us informed and making us think. Let's be like the Bereans and go to God's word to check out everything we hear - from you, the pope, Billy Graham, or whomever.
Take care!
(P.S.) ~ I miss Coastlands! :(
Too bad such and important person in the Catholic church and to Christianity would make such a blatantly divisive statement. As my friend Paulla said God is big enough to deal with this. It just proves that we are all flawed and in need of a savior, even the Pope!
Sad, tragic, misdirected, unbiblical, wrongheaded, and stupid in every sense of the word and from every angle, spirtually and politically. I know people in
the Catholic church who will take this as the final straw. If the pedaphile priest thing weren't bad enough, this is quite a kicker. It will be interesting
to see how it plays out.
Don
It seems to me that the Pope needs to be saved. If he were he wouldn't have made that statement because he would have known the real truth. NM
We're bloggin' now! Thanks so much to all of you for the great comments.
Paulla is right, sadly. There are church leaders all over the world that claim their church is the only true church.
If you guys ever catch me saying something that would give the impression that Coastlands is THE church, slap me silly. We're just doing out best to honor God year in and year out. We certainly don't have the "coolest" or "best" church in town. I hope we are changing appropriately over the years as God reveals himself to us for each new generation. The gospel never changes, Jesus is always the same and our job is to present that message of hope to every generation.
Are most of the people who receive your emails unaware of Catholic doctrine or dogma so much so that they don't know that this is what they believe from time immemorial? You surely have known that, right? Mormons and JWs and Church of Christ-ers are late to this belief.
I asked a Catholic friend of mine for a response, as this really intrigued me (my friend became Catholic during college, after getting saved through Campus Crusade). His take is enlightening, though I disagree with the ultimate conclusion. But it's not as drastic as it otherwise sounds. I asked him, "am I saved?"...
***(his comments below)***
First, Catholics wouldn't phrase the question the same way. We say we "have been saved, are being saved, and hope that we will be saved". Protestants see that as lacking faith, Catholics see that as avoiding presumption with God and realizing we don't know how our lives will end and what good or bad thing we might do before we die. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling".
So what did the new document actually say?
"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."
"'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.'
I think the Church is saying that, in as much as she hesitates to say even whether any individual Catholic is saved, that yes, Protestants are saved. But they are saved because of Christ's grace and salvation that is found in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church - the fulness of which subsists in the Catholic church, and whose fulness is shared with other Christian churches and communties in as much as they preserve the faith.
I am honored that you were present at my baptism (Yachats!) and my reception into the Church. I view my baptism as the moment as when I was saved, and as the most important step on my journey with the Lord. So, I believe I was saved prior to becoming Catholic. That's why I'm confident that you and I are both saved!! And why I made sure that I wasn't baptized a second time by the Catholic Church (they would never baptize twice!). So the Church recoginzed my saving baptism in Yachats. Yet, and I know we've discussed this before, I don't believe my becoming Catholic was a trivial or optional or simply a preferential matter. I believe I was trying to be as faithful to scripture and God as possible. And I do believe that there is a fulness and intimacy with Christ that can only be found in the Catholic Church. I may have had other, less pure motives, but I pray that desiring to be close to Christ was part of my decision (part of why Christ called me into his Church may be a better wording...)
And that's all to say that the Church has been given the gift of the Eucharist, and that is where many non-Catholic Churches ("communities") are so deficient, in my opinion.
Quoting the document: "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 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense.
So, the Catholic Church is saying that you don't go to a Church, but rather a Christian Community. Because the church you go to hasn't preserved the priesthood and therefore the Eucharist (the very Body and Blood of our Lord). However you (and I) are likely still saved because your Christian Community has kept enough of the truth in her teachings and practices to be close enough to the fulness of the Catholic Church! Strong words. Seemingly arrogant? I would say truthful, faithful words. But important words. They were words like that which got me thinking at Logos house 12 years ago about all this stuff.
My wife just said "maybe it's like the Protestants are in the right house, but Catholics are in the right room. Everyone who is in the house is saved and part of the family, but it's a lot better to be in the right room". Hmmm.
Seth,
This is a very thought provoking post! Thanks to you and your Catholic friend. I do find numerous errors though and I want to address a few, best I can.
We don't need to question our salvation if we have truly accepted Jesus. "That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart the God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
Ultimately only God knows who has truly done that, but we can approach the throne of grace with confidence (Heb. 4:16) as we continue to work out our salvation (Phil. 2:12) with fear and trembling. IOW, have respect for God and actually live like a Christian!
For the Catholic church to presume that only they truly take communion is false and pious. Transubstantiation is a great concept in theory. Obviously there is no physical way that the bread and wine (or juice) we use today is actually the body and blood of Christ. We need to have deep respect for what communion is and take it with a clean heart. Communion is a great symbol of Christ's body and blood. In the same way, baptism is a great symbol of our salvation. Baptism doesn't save us (Christ's death on the cross saves us) but it is an important visual outward public statement of our faith in Christ.
In this discussion we seem to be forgetting that the church is not a denomination or building. It's the people. So, no group of people have a corner on all truth. Only God is all truth. So for any church or denomimation to claim salvation only comes through their church is not Biblical.
If I ever made the claims regarding our church that this man is making about the Catholic church, I'd be just as wrong.
The "holy catholic church" is the universal institution embodying the Christian faith, the religion based on the worship of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God. The concept as it was known beginning in 110 AD, expresses the idea that the followers of the religion can all be seen as part of one single group. Although today there is no single political entity generally recognized as the unique Christian Church,the concept is justified by the notion that the Church is ultimately headed by Jesus Christ who acts as the unifying figure for all who claim to follow Him. The phrase "the holy catholic church" in its widest sense (as "the Body of Christ") has a similar breadth.
Granted the "holy catholic church"
does mean the Christian church around the world. I'll give him that much.
I also want to leave one more post and this was the response I gave to Debbie Haulk. Her friend had given her his thoughts on this issue. I responded inbetween his lines, I'll put his thoughts in quotes.
"As for the Pope, I have not read the document that is mentioned below, but if you want my two cents, here is what is going on: In the 1960's the Catholic Church put out a series of documents collectively called "Vatican II." One of those documents is called Nostra Aetate ("In Our Time" or something like that), which I have read. It talks about non-Catholics, including other Christians, Jews, and Muslims."
I can see how a Catholic could put Jews and Muslims in another category, but to do that with Christians is not right. Supposedly, Catholics and Christians believe the same thing about Jesus and that he is the only path to God. It should never be about Catholics or Protestants. It all boils down to a recognition of sin, a need for a savior, repentance and accepting Jesus as the only path to God. Once someone had done that, it really doesn't matter if they are Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Baptist or whatever. All these denominations formed because of the differences in humans and how they like to worship (as well as theological differences, hence the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther's 95 thesis against the Catholic church.) Ideally though, they should all be based on the same foundation, that is Jesus Christ.
"The document asserts that the Catholic Church contains the fullest revelation of God and Jesus' message,"
We need to remember here that the church is the people, not Catholics or Protestants. The fullest revelation of God comes to us through the Bible. Hopefully Christian churches can (using the Bible) accurately point people to God through Jesus Christ. If a Catholic church or Protestant church is doing that then they contain the fullest revelation of God and Jesus message.
"but it also holds out the possibility of salvation to all peoples, even those who do not know or expressly follow Jesus."
That sounds nice and great in theory, but it lends itself to a universalist theology. That is, that all will end up in heaven. Somehow, people need to come into a knowledge of God, their sin nature, a need for a savior (Jesus) and accept that. I always say we'll be surprised at who does end up in heaven as well as who doesn't, but that's up to God to decide, not us.
"Christ is still the only way to the Father, but evidently, He can take you to the Father even if you do not know him by name."
I guess I can allow for that possibility, but again that will be God's call and not ours. Meanwhile, let's do our best to get the message of Jesus out there.
"Anyway, the current Pope did not like the way this document was being read by liberal Catholics, and so he is pulling in the reins. As for me, I would not be a Catholic if I did not believe the Catholic Church, more or less, had the right idea, so that much is not really controversial."
The Catholic Church does have some of the right ideas, but when it comes to a works based theology (which the Catholic Church tends to emphasize) vs. a faith based theology (a major contention in the Reformation) I'll have to fall on the side of Martin Luther and the Protestants.
"A Methodist believes Methodism is the best way or why else would he be a Methodist?"
Not necessarily. Our church is Baptist, but by no means do I believe Baptists are the "best" way. Again, I hope and pray that Christians in many denominations (including some Catholics) have the same foundational beliefs even though the methodology in worship may vary.
"The issue really is, how should Christians view the salvation of non-Christian, how does one reconcile these two passages: "no one comes to the Father except through me" and "God wills the salvation of all men."
Yes, God wants all men to be saved, (because he is a loving God, yet also a just and righteous God who hates sin and rebellion against him) but we know that's not going to happen. Not everyone gets a free ticket into heaven. There will be some that reject God and perish in Hell.
"How do you capture the uniqueness of Christ and not make God a sadist who condemns children in Islamic countries who have either never heard of Jesus or never really have a realistic chance of learning about him."
That is a good point and a tough one to answer. Those Islamic children are most likely raised in the faith by their parents and culture. They have a responsibility, duty and right to investigate other faiths once they are old enough to do that. If they see the truth in Christianity and accept that, then they are right with God. For young children across the globe who have not yet reached an age of accountability, (able to make an intellectual and heart felt decision for God) then I believe God's grace covers them.
"For my money, I want to preserve the goodness of God at all costs, and so I try to make the best pitch I can for the Christian life and I'll leave who is or is not damned up to God."
That I agree with, no arguments from me.
"The Catholic Church, wisely in my estimation, believes and actually names saints—i.e., those who are in heaven with God—but they never assert that they know that anyone, even Judas or Hitler, is damned."
I also agree with that. Only God knows who is truly a Christian.
Well, I certainly rambled on. Feel free to share my answers with your friend. By no means do I have all the answers, but I want to continue to help in pointing people to God through Jesus Christ.
Evan
Evan stated:
"For the Catholic church to presume that only they truly take communion is false and pious. Transubstantiation is a great concept in theory. Obviously there is no physical way that the bread and wine (or juice) we use today is actually the body and blood of Christ."
Hi. I am Seth's friend, Jesse, whose comments were posted above. I didn't intend to get involved in this dialogue, but since Seth put my comments in here, I thought I'd give a response to a part of your response to my thoughts.
How can we be so sure that "there is no physical way that the bread and wine (or juice) we use today is actually the body and blood of Christ." I think many non-catholics
see the doctrine of the Real Presence (that Christ's risen body is truly, physically present at communion) as flying in the face of what our senses tell us, and therefore assume the Catholics are wrong about that, and therefore probably wrong about many other things.
But think about this. All Christians believe that Jesus is God. This is the doctrine of Incarnation. God became man! But did most people during Christ's time on earth recognize Christ as God? No. A few to whom Christ gave the faith to recognized him, but most did not. This was a main reason he was put to death - "how can a mere man claim to be God." How is this different than Catholics seeing Christ's true presence in the Eucharist? Christ's physical body didn't look particularly divine. There was no way to tell by looking that he was God. Likewise, the communion wafer doesn't look like Christ's body. There is no way to tell by looking that it is the body of Christ. In both cases we come to the truth by faith that Christ gives. We don't trust our senses to believe that Jesus was God. We trust God's word and the historical witness of his church.
In my opinion, these verses point to a literal presence of Christ's body in communion...
John 6:53 Jesus said to them "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."
Note that at the end of Ch. 6, Jesus doesn't correct them in their literal interpretation, but even lets people walk away.
The last supper (Mt 26:27):
"...Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink from it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ"
1 Corinthians 11:29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself."
And the early leaders of the Church, "the Fathers" :
St. Ignatius (Disciple of St John) (AD 110): "heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ." (Letter to Smyrnians 6:2)
St Justin Martyr (AD 150) "the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of the incarnated Jesus." (First Apology 66, 20)
As best I can tell, the Catholic Church has taught the doctrine of the Real Presence from the first disciples to the present day, as she tries to be faithful to the words of her Lord. This is the main reason that I became Catholic - that the Catholic Church is one of very few churches that actually believe the Lord's body is truly, literally present at communion. Even Luther himself believed in it, as it wasn't until later on that denominations stopped believing in the Real Presence.
I will give you this much: if the Catholic Church is wrong about the Eucharist, then it is teaching idolatry, because it teaches to treat as God something that isn't. However, if it is right, then all Christians should be receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, because she alone is faithful to Christs own words about his flesh, and other denominations are extremely deficient in their worship! I hate to paint things in such stark terms, but there isn't alot of wiggle room here!!
I think that not taking the Eucharist seriously is one of the main "deficiencies" amongst protestant churches that the Pope refers to and a main reason for issuing the document we are currently talking about.
Sorry if my words come of harshly. I write this all in a spirit of dialogue with a fellow brother in Christ and I welcome any comments...bowerj@hotmail.com
Jesse,
Thanks for your lastest post. I'll try and respond tomorrow afternoon.
Evan
Hello Jesse ( Seth's friend) you had a very intriguing post. It's so interesting to read the point of view from a Catholic.
You made some very interesting points.
However, for me, receiving the Eucharist would mean putting Christ to death all over again. Wouldn't eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in the Eucharist mean that Christ is dead?
I think the Bible makes it clear the Christ died only once for all mankind.
Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was enough to pay for the sins of all mankind.
Romans: 6:10 "The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God."
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
During the last supper, when Jesus and his apostles had communion, does this mean that the bread and wine they were eating and drinking was Jesus' body and blood?
I do believe that with the right heart, that the Catholic church can be a way to experience a beautiful intimacy with Christ. However, I also believe that there are many other ways to have that intimacy with Christ as well.
If you are willing, please do share more of your views of the Catholic church. Hopefully it will shed some light about the Catholic church. I personally do not know a whole lot about the church, but am interested to see what they believe.
Hi Neil, I really appreciate your comments and questions. Thanks for taking the time to write. I just wanted to say a few things about the Eucharist.
A very common misperception among non-Catholics is that at the Mass Catholics are (or believe they are) re-sacrificing Christ. This is absolutely not true, and Catholic teaching is clear on this. Catholic teaching states that the Body and Blood of the Lord which is consumed during communion is of the RISEN, LIVING Christ, in sacramental form. There is no re-sacrifice. Christ does not suffer again during the Eucharist. The Risen Lord makes himself present for us, "body, blood, soul, and divinity". There is a sort of sacrificial nature to communion, simply because the Lord is the One who was sacrificed, and who still carries his wounds, but who is now risen, and makes himself present for us in holy communion.
Catholics agree with you that Christ died only once and that one sacrifice is sufficient for all. The church teaches that what's made present at communion IS that one sacrifice (Christ himself).
You asked,"does this mean that the bread and wine they were eating and drinking was Jesus' body and blood?" That is a very fascinating question. I certainly don't know for sure what the answer is! If I were to guess, I would say yes, that this was the very first communion where Christ made his very body, his very self, present to his disciples, and that yes, he was holding his own body, mysteriously and sacramentally in his hands. I am no expert on this stuff though, and am just giving you my thoughts on it. I like the question, though.
I appreciate your comments about believing that a Catholic can have a very intimate experience with Christ. I, too, believe that there can be very intimate and beautiful experiences with Christ OUTSIDE the Catholic church. I wouldn't have the faith I have today (as weak as it can be)if it weren't for my non-catholic friends and all that I learned about Christ and the Bible from them. In fact, from my point of view, I am Catholic because of them, as I believe that my being Catholic is an outgrowth of trying to take scripture seriously. I know that Catholics can learn a LOT from their Protestant brothers, that the Church is full of sinners and has made lots of mistakes and that not everybody feels at home in the Catholic Church. However, I must say that if the Eucharist is what the Catholic church teaches it to be, I know of no way to be closer to the Lord than to receive him, literally, in communion. I say that as someone totally unworthy of such a gift, as we all are, but so grateful for the Eucharist, the real presence of the Lord, in my life.
If you'd like to read more about the Eucharist and what the Catholic church teaches about it, here is a link to the catechism that is helpful:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm
Thanks for your thoughts Neil. I enjoy the dialogue. It's great when Christians of different "flavors" can talk about the faith and seek the truth!
Jesse
Jesse,
Good thoughts all the way around from you and Neil. I hope this is a learning process for others too as they read these posts.
I don't want to spin the wheels too much here on the topic of transubstantiation so I'll try and make it brief.
Hopefully this won't come across as sacrilegious, but in the same way we know a magician can't break the laws of physics with the illusions they perform, the bread and wine can't break those same laws. (And really there is no need to. Communion is a visual symbol os Christ's death.)
When we see a good magician we enjoy the show knowing that they can't actually walk on water or saw a person in two. We suspend our belief and enjoy the show. With communion we know what it means on a deeper level and enjoy the sacredness of what it represents. Communion is always to be taken seriously because of what it represents.
Think about all the variations of the celebration of the Lord's supper taken in churches around the world. Are they using the right bread? Wine or juice? What really matters here is that they understand what the bread and liquid represent.
I believe the reason Christ wasn't recognized when he walked the earth (even though he was physicaly present)was no mistake. God incarnate was Jesus, who looked like the average Jewish man of his time. Yet, when he spoke, performed miracles etc. most believed he was God.
What really matters is if someone can realize the deepest meaning of communion and that it reminds us all of our need for a savior.
[IMG]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g189/ngk79/pope_statue.jpg[/IMG]
Here's an interesting transcript about the Catholic church and the Jesuits.
It's long, but a very intriguing read.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/blackpope.htm
Post a Comment