Boy oh boy! Were the headlines in the media and blogosphere ever more hyperbolic and littered with ignorance than they were today? Actually, they probably have been, but today’s gaggle of garbage certainly has to rank up in the top ten media explosions (or should I say implosions since, as usual, they’ve gotten the facts totally wrong). I’m referring, of course, to the latest proclamation from Rome regarding the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church to other Christian denominations (specifically Protestant denominations [in which, despite evolutionary differences, I shall lump the Mormons]). For the only reasonable and sane MSM explanation of Pope Benedict XVI’s new policy paper, please see here. For those uninitiated in the mysteries of theological doctrines, Dominus Iesus, issued by Pope John Paul II merely confirmed prior Church doctrine regarding its beliefs on salvation. The new document released by the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter merely reaffirmed and clarified portions of Dominus Iesus. The basic doctrines stated are not new. This is a not a radical, wild-eyed Pope creating theological doctrines out of thin air. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus has been accepted doctrine since at least 1215 and there are more than minor hints at it before then. The media (no fans of Catholicism) are merely jumping on this as evidence that the “elitist, exclusionary Catholic Church thinks everyone who isn’t Catholic is going to hell.” Um, no. Further clarification of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus (that is there is no salvation outside the Church) in, among other documents, Dominus Iesus, opens up the possibility of ecumenicism and communication between Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity. Of course, the same people claiming that Pope Benedict is the new Torquemada waste no time in pointing out that his previous position was as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which they always say is the newly renamed Inquisition; it is no such thing as any clear study of either Catholic history or the history of the Inquisition will show). This is a simple ad hominem and has no merit other than to show that the man is an academic theologian with excellent credentials. The Pope would not appoint a poor scholar to be head of such a critical organization. As Father Morris’ article points out, our current Pope is not the charismatic, media-friendly man that John Paul II was; instead he operates as he always has: as an academic. It’s time for the rabidly anti-Catholic media to sit down, shut up, listen and learn rather than project their darkest persecution fantasies onto what is merely the head of a world religion restating his own religion’s doctrinal beliefs. Enough of the ignorance. Enough of the stupidity. And for goodness’ sake, enough of the hyperbolic headlines.
-
Archives
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
-
Meta
I do have a problem with Catholic exceptionalism, but it’s the same problem I have with any other Christian denomination that claims an exclusive or especially enlightened understanding of the Gospels: sheer hubris. Probably because of a series of very painful experiences derived directly from my sexuality, I have come to believe that any one claim to a specific series of doctrines beyond the bare teachings of Jesus (who was not, it should be noted, a Catholic), while not necessarily wrong, is also no cause for claiming superiority.
In this vein, I take deep issue with the Catholic Church’s claim that, simply because it was founded by the Apostle Peter it therefore has a special claim to “the Church” as founded by Jesus. Jesus founded a group of believers (referred to in the Epistles of Paul as “the body of Christ”), and this can and should encompass many variety of churches. Not all parts of the body are the same, and not all fulfill the same or every function.
That being said, I still don’t buy that this is a move toward actual reconciliation with the other denominations, but merely a more clever way of browbeating Protestants into “coming home” to where they, according to the Hole See, should have been all along.
Absolutely correct. Jesus (PBUH) was an Orthodox Jew. His followers became the first Christians who evolved into Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
I don’t think that’s exactly true. Granted, I am an outsider looking in at the arguments of Christian sectarianism, but to me, the RC Church only makes one claim based on this. It does not claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a separate and “non-true” faith. Rather, the RC Church claims that its head, the Pope, is the final authority on all matters related to the faith (which claim they back up with the doctrine of Petran Apostolic Succession). The EO Church, on the other hand, claims that the Pope is merely the first among equals of the original five patriarchates of the ancient Christian Church (Rome, Jeruslame, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch). I somewhat tend to agree with this position, as it does not conflict with the concept of Petran Apostolic Succession and it follows the original tradition of Christianity.
Regarding Protestants, I think the geneal feeling in Rome is that Protestants are still part of the umbrella that is the RC Church, but that their actual practices are, “misguided.” I have certainly read the arguments, though, again, as an outsider it is difficult for me to identify them in real life practice, other than blatant biases (which seem to me to come mainly from English Anglicans and American fundamentalist Protestants).
Again, though, I think that it is Rome’s policy to consider Protestants still part of the RC Church, not necessarily needing to “come home.” Although Pope Benedict has not exactly been ecumenical towards Protestants, he did clearly spell out his intention to reunify with the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Antiochan, etc.). This is the biggest step toward reconcialiation with any other Christian faith that Rome has taken in a long time (the last attempt being the rejoining of the Eastern Catholic Churches with Rome). I guess only time will tell on this, but to a certain extent I do agree with you that the Pope’s current policies do seem oriented away from any cooperation with Protestant faiths.
My sentiments pretty much exactly when I read this. “Eh, who cares?”.
I certainly understand the reasoning here, but in reality, are there any protestants who actually do “come home”? It seems like such a small number, and even smaller if you take away those who “come home” so they can marry their catholic significant other.
Nice post, Omar.
ChrisB, as far as I am aware one does not have to be a Catholic to marry a Catholic. My wife is Church of England and I am a Catholic and neither of us had to ‘swap’. Our wedding was officiated by an anglican vicar and an RC priest provided a blessing and everyone was happy.
Kav, I think you’re correct, but if you want to have it in the catholic church you have to make a petition for a mixed religion wedding. I think having to convert may have been more prevalent in the past, at least I seem to remember my mother telling me she converted when she married my father those many years ago.
My mother did the same when she married my father. My wife and I were both Catholic, so it was a non issue for us. However, the mixed marriage thing is received differently in different parts of the country. For example, in heavily Catholic areas of the country (e.g. Philadelphia metro are; New York; Boston) it is more of a hassle to get married to someone of a different faith, but in places where Catholics are in the minority, such as Little Rock, AR (where I just recently attended a Catholic wedding where the groom was “other”) it doesn’t take much more than picking a date.
ChrisB, in the mass of stuff that I had to do before getting married (we had a short engagement so that we could tie the knot before we both moved to the States) I may well have had to fill in a petition I hoinestly don’t remember though so I take your word for it.
I think it certainly was more prevalent in the past.
Thanks, Kav!