'It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.'"
... but what else did we expect him to say? Basically official RC positions define 'church in a way that the RC fulfils and others don't, so we're bound to come off as poor substitutes, aren't we? The point is the definition, that's why there are protestants: we don't agree with the RC's about certain matters. It's a shame that this indicates no further movement, but it is a summary of where 'we' are up to. Unless someone changes position ... is that what the furore is really about? That actually it makes clear that there has been no substantial change in RC theological/ecclesiological self-definition? That must be disappointing, and arguably may not be the mind of the church, but it is hardly surprising, really. It's a tight circular argument: "we are the true church therefore these things X, Y, Z are the marks of the true church. And when we use these marks to assess who is the true church, oh look; it's us." The real progress would be a recognition that one or other of those terms may not be quite all it's cracked up to be.
Of course, many RC Christians aren't so convinced: so whose mind and which church are we talking about?
Dismay and anger as Pope declares Protestants cannot have churches | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
No comments:
Post a Comment