By Samuele Bacchiocchi*
Comment on the document released by the Vatican on July 10, 2007, entitled: “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." For the sake of brevity we shall refer to this document as Responses. The document was written by William Cardinal Levada, head of the Roman Catholic’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the request of Pope Benedic XVI himself, who fully endorsed it.
The Purpose and Structure of the "Responses"
Before leaving for his vacation in the Alps, Benedict XVI commissioned the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to prepare a document that would clarify for the bishops, faithful, and above all the theologians, some of the controversial points of the doctrine on the Church, which have been used promoted a more broader view of the church, inclusive of Orthodox and Protestant churches.
Responses is essentially a reiteration of the Declaration Dominus Iesus, issued in 2000 by Cardinal Ratzinger, while he was serving as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Benedict XVI sensed the urgent need to restate and clarify what he had already declared in Dominus Iesu. In view of the close connection between the two documents, we will examine them together.
Responses is formulated in five questions and answers. The first three restate that the Catholic Church “governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” is the only true church on earth instituted by Jesus Christ.
The fourth and fifth answers explain why the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant churches are “ecclesial communities,” rather than true churches. The reason is that they lack the apostolic succession, and therefore they “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery.”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Before commenting on the significance of the two documents, it is important to note that The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. For centuries this institution has operated as an extremely conservative force within the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation, suppressing dissents, and persecuting those who believed differently.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was directed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for 25 years before he was elected as Pope Benedict XVI. During his tenure, he influenced John Paul II to press charges against such theologians as Edward Schillebeeckx of Holland, Jack Pohier of France, Bernard Hasler of Switzerland. Hans Kung was stripped of his post as teacher of Catholic theology at the University of Tubingen for questioning papal infallibility. Prof. Charles Curran was suspended from his teaching post at the Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C., for advocating that sterilization and contraception were not always wrong. Jesuit priest Terrance Sweeney was forced to resign from his order, because he refused to destroy the results of a survey of American Bishops about celibacy and the ordination of women. A quarter of those surveyed reportedly approved optional celibacy.
In light of the historical function of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it hardly surprising to read its latest exclusivistic view of the church in the document Responses, released by the Vatican with the full blessings of Benedict XVI. It only shows that that the Benedict XVI is determined to play the role of the "Grand Inquisitor" of the Catholic Church.
Dominus Iesus: The Basis of the Responses
To understand the intransigent mind-set of Pope Benedict XVI, we need to consider his previous astounding declaration, known as Dominus Iesus. This document was composed, presented to the media, and defended by Cardinal Ratzinger while he was serving as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Pope John II. This document is important because it is the source of the Responses, and it sheds light into the goals that Benedict XVI has set for his pontificate.
I vividly recall the release of Dominus Iesus on Tuesday, September 5, 2000, because I happen to be in Rome on that day. On the evening news of the main Italian TV network, I saw Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself announcing the release of the Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus, which means “Lord Jesus.” He took time to explain the significance of this document for Catholics and non-Catholics. I was stunned when I heard him saying that according to Dominus Iesus, salvation is to be found only in and through the unique and universal Catholic Church.
The origin of this traditional Catholic view is traced back to Pope Boniface VIII. In his Bull, Unam Sanctam (A. D. 1302) Boniface declared: “There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.” This traditional Catholic view was substantially modified at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which formulated the concept, especially in the Constitution of the Church, that salvation is found not only inside the Catholic Church but also outside its fold, by all who live according to their conscience.
The Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, par. 3, reads: The separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
This broader view of various avenues to salvation fostered a policy of benign tolerance toward non-Catholics. Protestants, for example, were rehabilitated from heretics, to “separate brethren,” and to brothers and sisters in Christ. Similarly, members of world religions have been treated with more openness and respect.
In the thinking of Vatican conservatives like Benedict XI, the policy of benign tolerance toward non-Catholics inaugurated by Vatican II, may have gone too far. It may have weakened the alleged unicity and primacy of the Catholic Church. This concern is expressed in the new document Responses which affirms that "Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church are not full churches of Jesus Christ,” though they may have some elements of truth. The actual text posted on the official Vatican Web site in several languages, says that Protestant Churches are really “ecclesial communities” rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery.”
Salvation Derives Only From the Catholic Church
In other words, for Benedict XVI it is a fundamental Roman Catholic belief that there is only one true church that possesses the means of salvation and such church is the Roman Catholic church. Any salvation obtainable through other churches, ultimately derives from “the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
Benedict XVI is concerned about the rapid spread of the relativistic and pluralistic mentality among liberal Catholic theologians, who believe that “one religion is as good as another.” He expressed his concern in his fiery speech to the cardinals before they withdrew to the Sistene Chapel to elect the new pope. He warned them that the Catholic Church must not become prey to a modern “dictatorship of relativism.”
To remedy this problem, Benedict XVI reiterates that "there is only a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him." Furthermore, the Catholic church is the only true church because it has "the sacramental priesthod and has preserved the integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." These to claims will be examined shortly.
This reiteration of the traditional Catholic Church as the only venue of salvation, represents an insult to Protestants and Orthodox, and are an embarrassment to open-minded Catholic theologians who have long recognized that the Catholic Church does not have the monopoly of salvation.
Is Benedict XVI Really Interested in Ecumenism?
From an ecumenical standpoint, Benedict XVI's exclusivistic view of the Catholic Church is a non-starter. The pope is an intelligent and knowledgeable man who has written over 40 books. He knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of his exclusivistic claim of the Catholic Church. So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. The ongoing dialogue that he is promoting with all the major denominations, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is designed to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, Evidently this is the pope’s approach to other Churches, which is not ecumenism, but proselytism.
Furthermore, the Vatican dialogue with various Protestant Churches is designed to soften their anti-Catholic teachings. This is particularly true of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which has long recognized the prophetic role of the Papacy in leading many Christians into apostasy. Our prophetic calling is to invite people in every nation to come out of the of the Babylonian false worship promoted especially by the papacy.
Reaction of Protestant Church Leaders
Various church bodies engaged in dialogue with the Catholic Church, are recognizing the deceptive strategy of the Vatican. For example, The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a group representing 75 million Protestants in over 100 countries issued a press release suggesting that the new document, Responses, took ecumenical dialogue back to the time before Vatican II. The release states: “It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity. ... It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church. . . . For now, we are thankful that our calling to be part of the church of Jesus Christ is not dependent on the interpretation of the Vatican. It is a gift of God.”
The same concern is express by Clifton Kirpatrick, Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church, USA. In an open letter to the Vatican leaders, he wrote: “We join with other churches and ecumenical bodies in raising concern about the statement released July 10, 2007, [Responses] by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ratified by Pope Benedict XVI, regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine of the Church. In seeking to clarify its understanding of the Christian faith, we are rightfully concerned that the Roman Catholic leadership has mischaracterized our own faith and re-opened questions of Christian unity for all church bodies. ...”
Times Online, a leading British news source, wrote: “Protestants at the extreme evangelical end of the Anglican spectrum accused Rome of a ‘lust for power.’ while welcoming the honesty of the document [Response].” Indeed, credit must be given to Benedict XVI for clearly stating in two major documents, Dominus Iesus and Responses. his exclusivistic view of the Catholic Church as the only true church that offers the means of salvation. Such preposterous claim is clearly negated by Scripture that teaches us that salvation is not a dispensation of the church, but a disposition of the believer.
The Rev David Phillips, General Secretary of the Church Society in Great Britain, offers this perceptive comments: “Nothing new is said [in Responses], but it does clarify the way in which the Vatican has torn apart Christianity because of its lust for power. They remind us that in their view to be a true church one has to accept the ludicrous idea that the Pope is in some special way the successor of the apostle Peter and the supreme earthly leader of the Church.
“These claims cannot be justified, biblically, or historically, yet they have been used not only to divide Christians but to persecute them and put them to death. We are grateful that the Vatican has once again been honest in declaring their view that the Church of England is not a proper Church. Too much dialogue proceeds without such honesty. Therefore, we would wish to be equally open; unity will only be possible when the papacy renounces its errors and pretensions.”
This is the challenge that Protestants face today, namely, to stop being politically correct by trying to make the Catholic Church appear as a legitimate Christian Church, and to start exposing the unbiblical, heretical, and pagan origin of most Catholic beliefs and practices. This is a formidable challenge for many Protestant Churches that have stopped protesting, because they have become victim of religious relativism. Benedict XVI has been honest in stating his exclusivistic view of the Catholic church. This calls for an honest response, by telling the pope that he is the embodiment of arrogance and intolerance, lusting for power, rather than for an understanding of Bible truths.
EVALUATION OF DOMINUS IESUS AND THE RESPONSES
The absolutistic Vatican Declarations of Dominus Iesus and Responses that salvation for any persons is ultimately possible only through the channels of grace entrusted to the Catholic Church, stands in stark contrast with the interfaith dialogue fostered by Vatican II and the ceaseless efforts of Pope John Paul II to become the undisputed spiritual leader of mankind by reaching out to people of all faiths.
One wonders, What has caused this retrenchment in the mind of Benedict XVI? Apparently the reason is his conviction, mentioned earlier, that the policy of benign tolerance inaugurated by Vatican II, may have gone too far. It has fostered a “dictatorship of relativism” that fails to recognize the certainties contained in Catholic doctrines.
Benedict XVI is concerned about the moral relativism evident today in the secularism of Western countries which is causing the almost total collapse of the Christian faith. He believes that when the measure of truth is found in us, then there is no longer an ultimate truth and certainty. The “anything goes” approach to life, can only satisfy individual egos and desires, but it ultimately leaves people without the certainty offered by the Catholic Church.
Benedict XVI is rightly concerned about the spread of theological relativism and pluralism which is weakening the alleged unicity and primacy of the Catholic Church. To counteract this threat the two documents Dominus Iesus and Responses, reiterate in a succinct but compelling way the theological foundation of the Catholic claim to possess the sole means of salvation.
These important documents help us to understand the ruthless mind-set of Benedict XVI—a man who sincerely believes to have been called by God to save the Catholic Church, especially in Western countries, from “the dictatorship of relativism"— the belief that there are no absolute moral truths and everyone is free to develop his/her own set of beliefs by which to live and seek salvation.
Benedict XVI is sounding a timely and legitimate warning against the danger of moral relativism that has become so pervasive in our Western society. This problem affects even our own Seventh-day Adventist church. An increasing number of our members are questioning the moral standards of our Adventist church, choosing instead to live by their own subjective values.
Benedict XVI is Blinded by Tradition
The pope is correct in exposing the danger of moral relativism of our society, but he is wrong in his proposed solution. He intends to resolve the problem of moral relativism by enforcing traditional Catholic teachings as if the were biblical truths. He makes no attempt to examine the biblical legitimacy of historical Catholic teachings, because for him the traditional interpretation supersedes any objective study of Scripture. Like the late John Paul II, he is a devout and sincere man who is blinded by tradition. Such a blindness causes him to accept and enforce Catholic heresies as if they were biblical truths.
Beneduct XVI's exclusivistic view of the Catholic Church, articulated in Dominus Iesus and Responses, highlights the Vatican's attempt to make salvation a dispensation of the church, rather than a disposition of the believer. By claiming to be the only church that has the apostolic succession and consequently the right to dispense salvation through the sacraments, the Catholic church is deceiving million of sincere people into believing that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (no salus extra ecclesia).
The fact that these documents go into great length to reiterate this traditional Catholic teaching, goes to show that after all Ellen White was right when she wrote: “Rome never changes. Her principles have not altered in the least. She has not lessened the breach between herself and Protestants; they have done all the advancing. But what does this argue for the Protestantism of this day? It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy” (Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894, par. 4). Benedict XVI is a living and compelling example of the truth that “Rome never changes.”
It is hard to believe that a brilliant man like Benedict XVI, could be so blinded by the traditional teachings of the Catholic, that causes him to fearlessly defend as truths what in reality are blatant errors, condemned by Scripture. The most outstanding examples are his beliefs in the Primacy of the Papacy based on the "Petrine Theory," and the Apostolic Succession. Both of these beliefs will be examined shortly.
The Belief in Papal Primacy
The belief in Papal Primacy was reaffirmed at Vatican II in the document known as The Constitution of the Church: “The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumens Gentium 23).
Benedict XVI clearly reaffirms this belief in his document Dominus Iesus: “Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single bride of Christ: a single Catholic and apostolic Church. . . . There exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.”
By linking the saving work of Christ with the Catholic Church, making the latter the sole channel for dispensing “Christ’s salvific mystery,” Benedict XVI makes salvation a monopoly of the Catholic church. This means that the Catholic Church herself is a “sacrament,” that is, a channel of grace to the world. “The Church is a ‘sacrament’. . . she is the sign and instrument of the kingdom.”
Such a preposterous, presumptuous, and exclusivistic claim is based on the unfounded assumption that church in the New Testament is a visible, hierarchical organization, which was originally established by Christ Himself, when he made Peter the foundation rock of the Church (Matt 16:18). This is belief is based on the “Petrine Theory,” according to which Christ entrusted to Peter the government of His church. As stated in the Responses, "This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”
To buttress this theory, both Dominus Iesus and the Responses, repeatedly appeal to the “apostolic succession.” Protestant churches fail to meet the Catholic criteria for being legitimate churches, because they cannot claim "Apostolic Succession." As stated in the Responses, "According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities [Protestant churches] do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church."
By "Apostolic Succession" is meant the existence of an unbroken succession from Peter, the first Pope, to Benedict XVI, the last Pope. Catholics proudly point out that no other church can make this claim of unbroken succession.
The Petrine Theory
In view of the fundamental importance attached to the Petrine theory and the apostolic succession, frequently mentioned in Dominus Iesus and the Responses to defend the Primacy of the Pope, it is important to briefly comment on the pivotal text of Matthew 16:18 used to prove the so-called “Petrine Primacy.” Christ told Peter: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the power of death shall not prevail against it.”
The question is, Who is the “rock” upon which Christ built His church? Obviously for Catholics, the “rock” is Peter as the foundation stone upon which Christ built His church. They rightly point out that the play on words “You are Petros and on this Petra” shows that there is an unmistakable connection between the two. Thus, Peter is the Petra upon which Christ has built His Church.
Protestants obviously reject this Catholic interpretation, arguing instead that the “rock” is either Jesus Himself or Peter’s confession of Christ. According to the former the text would read: “You are Peter and on myself as a rock I will build my church.” According to the latter: “You are Peter and on the rock of Christ you have confessed, I will build my church.”
Peter is the First Building Block
The problem with both of these popular Protestant interpretations, is that they do not do justice to the play on words. In the Greek there is an unmistakable connection between “Petros” and “Petra.” The question is not whether “Petra— the rock” refers to Peter, but in what sense Peter is “Petra—the rock.”
In my view Peter is “Petra—the rock,” not in the Catholic sense of being the foundation stone upon which Christ built His church, but in the sense that Peter is the initial stone or building block of the church, which is built upon the foundation of the apostles, with Christ as the corner stone.
This interpretation rests on two major considerations. First, the New Testament pictures the church as a building, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20; cf. 1 Pet 2:4-8; 1 Cor 3:11). The imagery of the church as a building suggests that the church does not rest on the foundation rock of Peter, but that began with Peter as the first stone.
Peter is the first building block because he was the first person to confess and accept Jesus of Nazareth, as the Christ, that is, the Messiah, “the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). Being the first convert to publicly accept Christ, Peter became in a sense “the first charter member” of the new community of believers, or the first building block of the spiritual edifice which is the church.
The Church is an Invisible Community of Believers
A second important point, ignored by the Catholic Church, is that the New Testament views the church, not as a visible hierarchical organization run by the Pope with his bishops, but as an invisible community of believers who are united by the same faith in Christ. In the Bible “the church” is not a hierarchical structure, governed by one man, but the “people of God,” united by the common bond of faith and love. Both the Hebrew qahal and the Greek ekklesia, translated “church,” actually refer to the “congregation” of believers, who have been called out from the world (Deut 7:6; Hos 11:1; 1 Peter 2:9) in order to be a light in the world (Deut 28:10; 1 Pet 2:9).
This means that when Jesus spoke about building His church, He meant, not the establishment of a hierarchical religious organization, but the building up of a community of believers who by faith would accept Him and confess Him before the world. In this context, Peter, by being the first person to confess and accept Jesus as “Christ,” which means “Messiah,” became the first living stone of the spiritual edifice consisting of a community of believers. The idea of Peter being the foundation of the church as a hierarchical organization identified with the Catholic Church, is foreign to the text, to the teachings of the New Testament, and to the organization of the Apostolic Church.
The Claim of the Apostolic Succession
A fatal blow to the Catholic view of the “Petrine Primacy,” is the lack of any New Testament support for the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic Church. If, according to the Catholic claim, Christ appointed Peter as His vicar to govern the church, then we would expect Peter to function as the leader of the Apostolic church. But this is hardly the case.
For example, there are no indications that Peter ever served as the presiding officer of the Jerusalem church. The organizational structure of the Jerusalem Church is characterized as collegiality with a presidency. But there are no indications that Peter ever served as the presiding officer of the church. At the Jerusalem Council, it was James, not Peter, who presided in the deliberations (Act 15:13).
Furthermore, the ultimate authority of the Jerusalem Church resided, not with Peter, but with the apostles, who were later replaced by “elders.” For example, it was “the apostles” who sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to check on the new Christian communities. Had Peter been the leader of the apostolic church, he would have counseled the apostles to send him to Samaria, rather than being told by the apostles to go there.
It was the “apostles” who sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22). It was “the apostles and the elders” who sent Judas and Silas to Antioch (15:22-27). It was “James and the elders” who advised Paul to undergo a rite of purification at the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24). Had Peter been appointed by Christ to serve as the Head of the Church, he would have played a distinctive leadership role in the decisions mentioned above.
Paul Did not Acknowledge Peter as the Head of the Church
Moreover, there are no indications that Paul viewed Peter as the leader of the church. We are told that when Peter went to Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). Paul’s action hardly suggests that Peter was recognized and respected as the infallible head of the church.
Furthermore, Paul explicitly says that Peter was entrusted with preaching the Gospel to the Jews, while his mission was to preach to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7). This suggests that Peter's mission was predominantly to the Jews, and not over the whole church.
Paul refers to the “pillars” of the Apostolic Church as being “James, Cephas, and John” (Gal 2:9). The fact that “James,” the Lord’s brother, is mentioned before “Cephas,” the Aramaic for of “Peter,” indicates that James, rather than Peter, served as the leader of the church. Had the apostles understood that Christ had appointed Peter to serve as the Head of the church, they would have entrusted to him the leadership of the church. But the fact is that Peter is never seen in the NT as the sole or chief leader of the Apostolic Church.
Origin of the Apostolic Succession Theory
The notion that Christ invested Peter with the authority to govern the church and that such an authority has been transmitted in an unbroken succession to his successors, is a pure Catholic fabrication devoid of biblical and historical support. It first appears in the writing of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (A. 175-195), who uses the argument of the apostolic succession to refute gnostic heretics. He argues that the gnostic teachings are heretical because they are rejected by those churches which can trace their apostolic pedigree (Against the Heresies book 3).
The argument of the apostolic succession served a useful purpose in the early church when the formation of the New Testament was still in a progress. Church leaders needed an objective authority to refute heretics, and they found it in churches like Antioch, Ephesus, and Alexandria, which could trace their origin to an Apostle. These churches could serve as the touchstone of orthodoxy. But to extend the concept of the apostolic succession to the whole course of Christian history is unwarranted, because of the interruption and apostasy that these churches have experienced. The Moslem invasion of the seventh and eight centuries wiped out completely most of the ancient Eastern churches.
Missing Links in the Papal Successions
The same hold true for the Bishop of Rome. Anyone familiar with the history of the papacy, knows how difficult it is even for the Catholic church to prove the unbroken succession from Peter to the present pope. There have been times when the papacy was in the hands of several corrupt Popes, who fought among themselves for the Papal throne. For example, in 1045 Pope Benedict IX was driven out of Rome by the people because of his unworthiness and Silvester II was placed on the Papal throne. Later Benedict IX returned and sold the Papal throne to a man who became Gregory VI.
During the course of events Benedict refused to lay down his papal claims, so that there now were three Popes claiming to be the rightful pope. To resolve the problem the German Emperor Henry II called a synod at Sutri in A. D. 1046, which deposed all the three popes and elected Clement II instead. One wonders, which of the three deposed popes fits into the apostolic succession? How can the Catholic Church still legitimately defend the notion of an unbroken succession from Peter to the present pope, when some of her popes were deposed for their corruption! It is evident that there are some broken links in the chain of the Apostolic succession.
It is unfortunate that a brilliant and sincere man like Benedict XVI, is so blinded by the traditional teachings of the church, that he is unable to look objectively at the teachings of the Bible and the testimony of history. Tradition colors the sight and conditions the thinking to the extend that error appears to them as truth.
The Importance of the Eucharist
The Catholic claim to possess the sole means of salvation rests not only on the alleged apostolic succession, but also on the Catholic view of the Eucharist as the reenactment of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. In fact, “the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist” are mentioned together several times in Dominus Iesus and Responses, because they are the two pillars of the Catholic claim to be the only true church which has the power to dispense salvation.
In its concluding statement, the Responses states: "According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities [Protestant Churches] 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 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense." Simply stated, in the Catholic view, Protestant churches are not true churches, especially because they have not "preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery."
This newsletter does not allow us to expose the fallacies of the Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper, known as transubstantiation. The absurd claim that the priest has the power to transform the bread and wine into the physical and historical body of Jesus, and to offer it to the believers by means of a wafer, makes the Catholic Church a dispenser of salvation through her priesthood.
For the Catholic Church the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice are made available to the believer, not through the heavenly ministry of Jesus in the sanctuary as taught in Hebrews, but through the earthly ministry of the Catholic priests at the altar, as taught by tradition. The Christ that most Catholics know, is the Christ they swallow at the Mass. “Christ’s salvific ministry” is available to them through the Eucharist.
The Catholic emphasis on worshipping what they can swallow at the Mass, what they can touch in the statues and images of Mary and the saints, and what they can seen in the pope who claims to be the Vicar of Christ, has fostered a pagan religion system where physical elements takes precedence over a spiritual relationship
Conclusion
The foregoing reflections on Benedict XVI declarations found in Dominus Iesus and Responses, have served to highlight the Catholic attempt to make salvation a dispensation of the church, rather than a disposition of the believer. By claiming to be the only church that has the apostolic succession and consequently the right to dispense salvation, the Catholic church is deceiving million of sincere people into believing that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (no salus extra ecclesia). From a prophetic perspective, this deception represents the endtime efforts of the Dragon, Sea-beast, and Land-Beast to lead the whole world into the false worship of God.
Our only safeguard against deceptive teachings, is familiarity with the teachings of the Word of God. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the church is not a hierarchical organization that has the right to dispense salvation, but a community of believers called to “declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you [us] out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet 1:9).
* Samuele Bacchiocchi , Ph. D., is a Retired Professor of Theology and Church History, of the Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan (USA). This University is an educational institution of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
(34037 Zeichen)
