defining church...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
"Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20]."
notes:
[19] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.
[20] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.
So, if we don't take Pope Benedict XVI's somewhat conservative definition of church to be universally attractive (understatement anyone?!) then how do we define 'church'? Answers on a postcard (or blog response) to...
hat tip (and much fuller post!)... Scot McKnight
Update... Dave Walker has a witty post relating to all this 'here'
3 Comments:
"The cosmos is the church, and the church is the cosmos"
;-)
commented by Steve Lancaster, 12:07 PM
You start to read this present Pope's last few pronouncements (latin rites,etc) and you all to quickly begin to get the beginnings of picture of a denomination rebuilding its 'walls' against all 'outsiders'.
commented by 7:35 PM
,
commented by Steve Lancaster, 12:05 PM