All, I hope you guys don't mind this discussion in this forum. I suspect I'm at some fault for pointing Pennelope, who's relatively new to Christian Forums, to our "Ask a Calvinist" subforum. I'm sure this caught her eye for clarification. I hope this can be respectfully discussed. If you feel it's too much for me to draw her into this discussion here, I'll take the questions directed to her offline. Just let me know.
This isn't an accurate understanding about what was stated or what the Catholic church believes about the nature of the Catholic church and the standing of Protestant believers.
I think further down you explain better your idea how the "means of salvation" would be excluded from Protestant churches, and yet salvation itself could be obtained through them.
In Presbyterian thought the means of salvation is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ Himself stated that He is present among two or three gathered in His name. Therefore I would conclude that what Rome terms "the means of salvation" is not really its means.
The church that Christ established is his Church. Everyone who belongs to Jesus is part of it. The Catholic Church knows that not everyone who belongs to Jesus is "Catholic."
I'd agree that Rome considers its historical lineage from the Apostles and Jesus Christ to be "the church that Christ established", but again, that doesn't mean that's what Christ considers to be His churches. As He said when His relatives were there, "my brothers and sisters are those who hear my words and act on them." And similarly to Presbyterians the church is the gathering of Christ's people in communion with one another. To us it's not an organization He began; it's the gathering of people He brings to New Birth.
It also believes that Jesus wanted to give his body gifts of a kind that would empower them and equip them so that indeed, as he said, it would be "better for you that I go away." Those would be the sacraments, which are outward expressions of God's inward work. The Eucharist (Communion) is one of them, Baptism, and several others. (I know there are a lot of points of disagreement here among many of us, but please stick with me. I just want to clarify what's really being said so at least we can disagree about genuine facts.
)
There we'd probably have more agreement.
Many Christian bodies have a different understanding from Catholics of the way God works through the sacraments, what Jesus meant the role of the apostles to be, whether he meant for those elders to ordain other elders and on down the line, and so on. We can even disagree on whether they are important issues. Other churches wouldn't necessarily agree that these are critical issues or wouldn't agree with the Catholic view, but that's what's behind the Pope's statement that they aren't fully "churches" but rather "ecclesial communions". It's too bad we in the U.S. use the word "church" to mean so many things. It has a precise meaning in the sense used in the Vatican document.
Which to us is rather strange. The word "church" is "ekklesia". To call something an "ekklesia koinonia" (church fellowship) is to call it by the essential definition of a church in Presbyterian and most Protestant churches. It's a Greek term. So it's not particularly an American issue.
So, according to this, more of the things that are part of making God's saving grace available to the world are resident in the Catholic church than elsewhere, but the other bodies have authentic portions, certainly enough to effect salvation (as you'll see if you just look around at the wonderful spirituality and vibrant life in many congregations). The Pope would also say that the Catholic Church doesn't have everything that Jesus really wanted to give his people, and for that "shame on us", so to speak. If Catholics really realized that, in the Eucharist, Jesus is genuinely (sacramentally) present, and if we encountered him as fully as he wants us to, we would be way more transformed into His likeness than we are.
Interestingly, the Reformed thought on this is that there are many churches, all with sinful aspects. A true church is one that has three aspects: the worship of the one God, the administration of Christ's two sacraments, and the preaching of the Gospel not wholly uncorrupted.
I'm familiar with a few Roman Catholic churches where this has been the case, and it has been gratifying to see their churches growing -- exploding -- while the church preached the Gospel. I love to see it happen. I'm saddened when the priests who have made it happen depart. That gathering of people often falls back.
I hope this is a helpful clarification. It is not meant to be argumentative or to say that you need to believe what I believe. But it seems to me that it serves Jesus' intention that we would be "all be one" if we are diligent about holding each other in respect insofar as we are all genuinely trying to follow Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Presbyterians say the fellowship of the saints is not split, but it is universal -- that is by definition, "catholic".
Further afield, it would be interesting for me to hear how you might approach kids who have been evangelized by Protestants and who want to keep their Catholicism through this time. This reassertion of "only one church" comes at a prickly time for some kids struggling to believe, and dwelling in Roman churches who don't lead their charges to believe. I've been wondering how to approach the question if I get the opportunity to answer it. My present intent is to answer it, "You may be a good Christian and still adhere to being a Roman Catholic; but not all of Roman Catholicism is right or good or better than what's truly, Scripturally Christian. In that sense, be a good Christian; be Roman Catholic; but don't be a good Roman Catholic when it means not being a good Christian."
