Pope Benedict XVI in Assisi
Photo: Franco Origlia/Getty Images
In principle, every Christian church has a right to insist that only they are fully Christian, but from an atheistic perspective all are equally Christian. Atheists consistently have to deal with Christians telling us that this or that group aren't "really" Christian (because they are violent, because they accept gays, etc.). Cases like this, though, where the Vatican is officially denying the validity of all other claims to being equally Christian help reveal why we outsiders just can't accept such claims at face value.
A 16-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict once headed, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of Pope.
But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in Protestant denominations. "Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said. ...
The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully. The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation", a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans.
Source: Reuters
Father Augustine Di Noia, Under-Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, insists that "The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," but this document should make clear to everyone involved that "ecumenical" here simply means "getting others to eventually recognize the supremacy of the pope and the Church of Rome." That's always been the position of the Vatican and it would be wrong to expect them to change it now. They are not interested in compromise, except when it's others doing the compromising.
Everyone is making a big deal about this, even though there technically isn't anything new in the recent statement. All in all, it's mainly a restatement or confirmation of what was already stated in the document Dominus Iesus issued in 2000 under the supervision of Pope John Paul II. At the time, it was made unambiguous that churches outside Catholicism were not "true churches" but merely "ecclesial communities" because they lack the "means of salvation."
Since Jesus is the "means of salvation" in Christianity, this means that churches outside of Catholicism lack Jesus — only the Catholic Church, under the direction of Pope Benedict XVI, "has" Jesus. Since Christianity itself is conceived of as being the only true religion, the only true ideology, and the only valid means of living, claiming to be the sole Christian church is necessarily a claim to being the only legitimate source of the only legitimate way for human beings to live.
This means that the Vatican document may appear to be solely the concern of Catholics or perhaps of Christians generally, but it's relevant to us all. Catholics aren't typically a source of Christian Supremacist ideology, but this insistence on defining one's own organization as the only genuinely Christian one is an integral part of Christian Supremacy. The Catholic Church is thus feeding the underlying ideology behind extremist and even violent Christian behavior. Is it any wonder that some atheists argue that moderate and liberal Christians inadvertently provide cover to fundamentalists, extremists, and even terrorists.
Might as well get a discussion going here. Just who is the pope? Other than a closed minded, opinionated, superstitious old man. This is just an opinion that I have. Oh, by the way, I looked up the words, opinion and faith in my dictionary. The two words pretty much have the same meaning
Excellent article, Austin. You hit on nail on the head: one of the biggest problems I, as an atheist, have with Christianity in general is all the in-fighting. It’s always struck me as terribly juveline at best, since it is all superstitious mumbo-jumbo; but at worst, it’s philosophically insidious.
Christianity was not the religion of Christ. Christianity is a product of Paul, the self proclamed apostle. The Roman Catholic Church is the church of the Apostles. There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God, but spending your life believing in a negative seems to me a waste of time.
Atheism is not “believing in a negative.” Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and it’s no more a “waste of time” than not believing in elves or Bigfoot.
A supremacist religion needs to claim to be something unique and special. It is designed to teach to ignorance the nature of the unknowable. Baptists claim that every man is a Pope, and then they turn out to be all alike. Religion is an allergic reaction to silence. (I disagree with Brock. Life is not a commodity that can be wasted.)
Hard-core protestants declare that Catholics are not Christians. As a child I would argue with my Baptist relatives about the proprity of sending missionaries to Catholics. “They’re Christians too,” I’d say.
As an atheist of course I will be going to hell when I die. It seems I will have a lot of Christians with me other than Catholics.
Hi Austin. Hope your love for accuracy wins again, here. While I don’t have huge beefs with what you said here, you may want to reconsider this assertion: “Since Jesus is the “means of salvation” in Christianity, this means that churches outside of Catholicism lack Jesus” As in fact in the Catholic way of thinking, by ‘means of salvation’ other things can be referred to, in particular the sacraments, but certainly other things as well. The Catholic Encyclopedia will be helpful here: search for terms means of salvation.”
So, while I certainly don’t agree with the Pope, I also accept that when the Catholic church decries our separation from them they really do not think we ‘do not have Jesus.’ In fact, most protestant religions still hold to the same core tenets of the RCC, eg, the three ecumenical creeds.
At any rate, it is not accurate to say “THE means of salvation” IS Jesus from the RCC perspective. It can mean a lot more different things then that in Catholic theology.
I don’t know what you were trying to point to, but there is no link there. Searching on my own, I find this:
This is a description of Jesus alone.
I cannot find anywhere that Catholic sacraments are described as a means of salvation. Baptism is described as necessary for salvation (not a means) while the eucharist is denied as means of salvation. That’s only two, but it’s enough to conclude that your assertion about “the sacraments” must not be accurate.
The Catholic Church is truly indeed the most Christian of all churches, in that it is the one church that is Apostolic in its nature. This means it is the one Church that dates back to the Apostles, and just as Jesus placed hands on His disciples and sent them forth, and then they in turn did the same and so forth through the ages until the present. This is one consistent unbreakable line of succession from Jesus to current bishops. Just as Jesus told Peter he was to head the Church because of his statement of whom Jesus truly was, the current pope holds that position of bishop of Rome, just as Peter did. Therefore, he is the human head of the Church just as Jesus set forth. Nothing anyone can say or do will cause end to His Church. Other churches feel empowerment because they feel they have the power to interpret the bible as they please, but Jesus said plainly that the Church has the power to do that and has the words of everlasting life. One can disagree, but the truth is the truth, and thank God for His Church, the Holy Catholic Church.
The joke is on the Catholic Church, which hounded out and or killed earlier Christian branches of this faith.”They” by murder and deceit have tried to claim their number One Ship. How sad that this is all they are concerned with. From this conceit of nature within Christianity comes the arrogance of speech you see among not only Roman Catholics, but all Christians.