Vatican II Backtrack under Benedict XVI?

I read this and went..."ummm....ok?" So much for the Pope being a respetcted mediator and global symbol.

The question is...why the backtrack?

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -- The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

The Vatican said other churches are "wounded" since they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations -- a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

"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 Vatican text, which restates the controversial document "Dominus Iesus" issued by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, said the Church wanted to stress this point because some Catholic theologians continued to misunderstand it.

Ratzinger was elected Pope in April 2005. The document is his second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition in four days, following a decree on Saturday restoring the old Latin Mass alongside the modern liturgy.

The document stressed that dialogue with other Christians remained "one of the priorities of the Catholic Church."

The document, issued by Benedict's successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, complemented the Latin Mass decree in aiming to correct what it called "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, like Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

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. Father Augustine Di Noia, under-secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia told Vatican radio.

"But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be."

All hail the Pope, the Catholic church is the only way into heaven.

Originally posted by Boris
All hail the Pope, the Catholic church is the only way into heaven.

That's not what the document says. It specifically mentions the fact that many elements of "truth and sanctification" exist in other churches. It's not demonizing anybody. What's so shocking about the Catholic Church issuing a statement of belief that it is the full and complete expression of Christ's revelation through scripture and tradition? Doesn't any church, by definition, believe the same thing about itself? I personally feel like this statement is pretty tame.

But there is a difference between belief and publicizing it like this. Under Vatican II the RC Church tried to bridge the gaps between themselves and other Christian demonimations, especially under JPII.

It seems that policy will change.

while it may seem like a statement of the obvious, the message from the Vatican is certainly not one of Christian unity, and given there are places in the world where even the protestant/catholic split is still an open sore, this cannot be helpful.

speaking of sores...the language in the document is also just poisionous...calling other churches wounded.

Thats npt a statement of disagrement...thats a statement of division.

or that the title "church" shouldn't be applied to other Christian denominations

Its a clear division, I don't understand the motivations for this, considering it could have some major consequences...

I can't wait for him to die.

he seemed ok at first

I remember on of his first proclemations being something akin to "don't worry about science, it isn't a threat to your religion"

which, i dont know, seems better than "Evolution is a tool of the devil"

no, actually, he reversed Vatican Policy on evolution. JPII made it clear that evolution was "more than a hypothesis"

(Speaking of rabidity...Dawkins slammed that opinion and harassed the Pope for not basically abolishing God's role (hes' the effing POPE you arse) in evolution and accused him of meddeling in science.)

Ratzinger, on the other hand...supports ID and sacked the Chief Vatican Astronomer (of 28 years) for stating that ID was not scientific theory.

WOW!!!

Looks like I don't know what I'm talking about

And ya, good old Dawkins, "what, you mean you support what I am saying and are willing to peacefully co-exist with science and religion as seperate non-overlapping entities? Unacceptable! You must accept the version of the universe that I accept"

Well statements like this will certainly bring the churches in the world closer together. Lucky for him though that the most organized church is still that Catholic church and most other churches can't a release a statement that is even close in impact to this one. So I would assume that the effects are rather minimal, although some church leaders of minor churches would certainly feel attacked by it.

Originally posted by Alliance
I can't wait for him to die.

How come? He'll just be replaced by a new one.

Originally posted by Alliance
But there is a difference between belief and publicizing it like this. Under Vatican II the RC Church tried to bridge the gaps between themselves and other Christian demonimations, especially under JPII.

It seems that policy will change.

OK. Point taken. However, ecumenicalism cuts both ways. The Catholic Church shouldn't be the only institution made to reach out and "adapt" while the others can just sit pat. Most other Christian denominations (especially the Evangelical wings) are openly hostile to the Catholic Church. Some even preach that Catholics are damned by virtue of their beliefs. So, I think that this statement is pretty tame considering...
Furthermore, one of the chief things that separates the Catholic Church from other denominations is this very issue of apostolic succession and papal authority. By issuing this statement, the Church is doing nothing but publicly clarifying its own self-understanding. How can there be honest dialogue if the Church isn't honest about its own self-image?

Originally posted by Alliance
I can't wait for him to die.

The Catholic Church will cease tc be relevant the exact second it "adapts" itself to the political correctness du jour.

I think this is a rather unwise.

Didn't the great Schism happen, because East refused to accept Pope? Either way...

Europe is very much Post-Christian, and other denominations have greatly reformed.
It is unclear to me why unification under the Catholic umbrella...

Originally posted by Boris
How come? He'll just be replaced by a new one.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
OK. Point taken. However, ecumenicalism cuts both ways. The Catholic Church shouldn't be the only institution made to reach out and "adapt" while the others can just sit pat. Most other Christian denominations (especially the Evangelical wings) are openly hostile to the Catholic Church. Some even preach that Catholics are damned by virtue of their beliefs. So, I think that this statement is pretty tame considering...

Furthermore, one of the chief things that separates the Catholic Church from other denominations is this very issue of apostolic succession and papal authority. By issuing this statement, the Church is doing nothing but publicly clarifying its own self-understanding. How can there be honest dialogue if the Church isn't honest about its own self-image?

I don't think of any other religious leader in the world who has as much pull as the Pope. JPII proved that in modern times, the Pope is a spiritual and a political leader. BenedictXVI is certainly failing at that second aspect. Thats a backtrack imo.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
The Catholic Church will cease tc be relevant the exact second it "adapts" itself to the political correctness du jour.

I like how the Pope is biblically supported...

Oh, wait.

SNAP

Very little in Christianity is Biblically supported.

Originally posted by Alliance
Then why did it "strenghten" under the Popes who adapted it?

The non-specificity of this statement makes it difficult to respond. However, I will say that all change - with respect to institutions - is not alike in either kind, degree, or intrinsic motivation. Surely, the Church has responded and must respond to what is most prevalent in the culture at large at any given time. It must even ocassionaly reprioritize various facets of its teaching to meet current needs. But it cannot change the core of its own self-undertanding, without ceasing to be what it claims to be.

I assume your Mr. Dawkins crack is an allusion to Christopher Dawkins, the Catholic historian? I invite this comparison with gusto!