Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, 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." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
“It’s the same reference that says it’s okay to do woodworking because it’s fun.”
Great, then we are on the same page.
Anything but God. I know irish catholics get dispensation during Lent is St. P{atrick's day falls ona Friday. We don't want God to get in the way of a saint!
Orthodox Americans (OCA) get dispensation for Thanksgiving which falls smack in the middle of the Nativity Fast. Again, we don't want God to interfere with our intention of giving thanks to Him! Someting's got to give, and it's always God.
Hhypocricy is left and right. But being a lip-service Christian is always fashionable. Praxis is a different thing. Ovbviously we think God is not worth devoting our personal time on His day to Him and not much more. Minimallist approach to God is always popular. Do only as little as it takes to be saved...
“I didn’t know feasts were part of the sabbath observance.”
Lev 23:39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day [shall be] a sabbath, and on the eighth day [shall be] a sabbath.
So, I take it, you stay in your tent, right?
All devoted to GOD, not to hobbies.
You mean that God doesn’t back Toronto Maple Leafs, the Hamilton Tiger Cats, the Toronto Blue Jays, the Buffalo Bills, etc?
Shame, really. Las Vegas would really suffer. :)
We don’t necessarily completely rest on Sunday, but we do gather the family and spend it together. We don’t schedule sports or other such activities on Sunday, which can get tricky with 5 kids in school.
He created us. Do you think He didn't have His hand on what and how it was written, exactly written?
I have given you an example before and you may not put much credence in it now either but I'm going to repeat it.
In Deuteronomy 31:16-18 , Yahveh declared His people would forsake Him and in His anger He would hide His face from them. That comes to pass in the Book of Esther. Through this Book He was guiding them secretly, without their knowledge. His name is not mentioned once but secretly, His Sacred Name is hidden in this Book.
Esther 1:20 - All the Wives Shall Give. This is the first of five acrostics that exhibit, in the initials, the Divine Name.
5:4 - Let The King And Haman Come This Day . This is the second of the five.
5:13 - This Availeth Me Nothing. This is the third of five.
7:5 - Who Is He, And Where Is He? This is the fifth acrostic (it does not give Yahveh but does give us the Divine Name, I AM).
7:7 - That There Was Evil Determined Against Him. This is the fourth and last of the four acrostics exhibiting the name Yahveh in this Book.
His working was secret and hidden, hence the name of Yahveh is hidden secretly four times and the name Ehyeh, I AM that I AM, once. The massorah has a rubic, calling attention to that and at least three of the ancient manuscripts show the acrostic letters written in bolder print to draw attention to them, showing the four consonant letters of the name YHVH.
Man could not do that Kosta. Nor could man write Psalms 22 that tells us about the crucifixion of Christ 1,000 years before the event.
There is nothing pristine about the Bible.
And you believe men are?
........Ping
“All devoted to GOD, not to hobbies.”
I like the way God wants us to feast, but it does look like they were having fun. Hobbies are rest and creativity is a gift of God, in fact part of His dramatic likeness. Look at Bezaleel and Aholiab in Exodus 31.
Deu 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deu 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deu 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; [or] if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deu 14:25 Then shalt thou turn [it] into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
Deu 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Did Psalm 22 prophesy? Or did Jesus repeat the psalm?
And verse 31: And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you
means what?
Whatever my soul lusteth after?
My imagination is running rampant here. :)
I don't understand what you mean Mark. Do I believe it was a prophecy? Yes. What do you mean by "did Jesus repeat the psalm"?
And verse 31: And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you
I only have the KJV and it reads:
Ps.22:31 They shall come, and shall declare His righteousness unto a People that shall be born, That He hath done this.
Mine shows, in verse 30, something that is a little similar to what you have written. It talks about a seed serving Him. Is that the verse you mean?
....Ping
I’m beginning to understand why there were so many more anti-lusting proscriptions in the Law. Must have been a lot of tension with “is this a permissible lust or a naughty one?”
When God flooded the earth, what kind of killing was that? Accidental?
Can God kill children in wrath, but not in mercy?
What about children that just die? Is God powerless to prevent it?
“When God flooded the earth, what kind of killing was that? Accidental?”
Global warming, what with all that animal methane.
Because God's revelation to me leads me away from myself and toward scriptures. Not just any scriptures, but uniquely the word of our God. I'm not led to the Koran or the BOM or anything else.
FK: "God's changing of the heart is the same."
Then you don't need scriptures. There goes the whole sola scriptura superstition.
No, when there is a change of heart it is to believe in something. That "something" coincides with the fundamentals of core Christianity. One cannot be a Christian without agreeing with these fundamentals. I think you have even said that before.
Trouble is, Reformed theology discards the biblical verse that says that satan can appear as the Angle of Light. He is craftier than we are, remember...?
I don't see any trouble because I cannot recall the verse that says that satan is more powerful than God. While satan can outwit me alone, satan cannot snatch me out of God's hands. He just can't do it.
FK: "In addition, he [Ghandi] claimed to be a Christian AND a Jew AND a Hindu, etc."
Because we are all created in God's image, or do you think that some humanity is not really "human?" do you think the reprobate are not "human?"
On earth, only humans can be reprobated, so they must be human. But do you really think that believing in a one-world religion that teaches partly Godly doctrine and partly un-Godly doctrine is a good example of humanity? Oh wait, now that I think about it, it is!. You are right. :)
Thanks for the Tolstoy link. I found the story to be very readable and interesting. For me, the money line of the whole thing was by the Chinaman, the hero of the story: "Can any temple compare with that which God Himself has built to unite all men in one faith and one religion?" That is a very prophetic statement, since at some time in the future a very wise man will say just that, and many will follow him. His name will be anti-Christ. :)
You have assurance that you will persevere? From what I know about you, you don't strike me as a violent man. But I am sure you could be driven to violence. Perhaps you are confusing God's perseverance with ours? I have no doubt God can persevere; but can we? I think history and daily news are full of examples that prove many can't.
I won't persevere because of me, I will because of God, so that could be considered God's perseverance. (He will persevere in the good work He began in me, etc.) I have no problem with that. ...... And yes, I absolutely could be driven to violence if I turn away from God to a certain degree. I have certainly lost my temper before as a Christian, so it's just a different level of the same thing.
Kawaii referring to water and Spirit baptisms: "Who believes it's one event"?
Thanks for the link, Mark. I was under the impression that you all thought the Spirit always enters at the time of water baptism, but your link shows that isn't true. Fair enough.
Kawaii, I meant one event in time consisting of the water baptism itself, along with the Spirit entering at the same time. Those are two separate things happening concurrently. That's how I meant it anyway. :)
I realize that Mark. We live in a very secular society, and whatever is non-secular is founded on Protestantism in this country. So, as a Catholic or orthodox one finds himself in strange waters. It is not easy to be a Catholic and its even harder to be Orthodox given our fasting (about 180 days a year) and other observances that seem to interfere with two most popular days in the week (Happy hour on Wednesdays and bar hopping on Fridays).
At least Catholics have numbers, but the Orthodox are but 1% of the American population. So, unless you are really devoted, it's hard resist the pressure and absorb the looks and raised eyebrows.
Our society is geared at worshiping the mighty dollar and the devil made Sunday a perfect shopping and sports day to take everyone's mind away from God.
And where do you find it? Which version of the Bible is exactly as he wrote it? Even our oldest fragments are but mere copies of copies.
And we know that we have redacted and redacted and redacted over and over again that which we have and we have no way of knowing that what we are reading is exactly as he wrote it.
We've added commas that God didn't put there; we've added vowels that he didn't put there, we have added verses that he didn't put there.
Even in the Greek New Testament, we have a version in Alexandrian-type text of more recent origin, and of Byzantine-type text of older. And not only do they differ from each other but the latter differ from other Byzantine-type documents as well!
And in the Old Testament we have a Hebrew version (without vowels) and a Greek translation (the Septuagint). The oldest fragments of each are about equally old (3rd century BC). They agree but they also disagree quite a bit. Trouble is, the Apostles in the New Testament use almost exclusively the Greek version of the OT.
The Protestants and Baptists use exclusively the Hebrew version. Some go as far as to say that the Septuagint was written after the Gospels to make the OT "fit" better the Gospel references to the OT which don;t exist in the Hebrew version.
So, how can you say that what you are reading is exactly as God had written? We are not even reading the same Old Testament! In other words our scriptures are incompatible! We use what the Apostles used. The West uses what the Christ-rejecting Jews use.
I know we have the Apostolic faith, which is verified through old documents about Christian practices and beliefs by Apostolic Fathers and local church documents. We can corroborate that with liturgical worship dating back to the 1st century.
That's why we have the Church. If we all had one and original Bible, with all the commas and vowels where God wanted them, and if all the translations were done by inspired individuals, we may not need the Church and the Liturgy to tell us how the earliest Christians believed and worshiped. We could just as well read and know it's the word of God.
But, as it is, there is no way of knowing. So, those who are outside the Church depend on their own interpretation and have nothing to proof it against but their own selves, and that's no proof at all.
That's why sola scriptura is a deceptive belief that leads into personal theology of uncertain veracity. You are using one sole source which has been corrupted and whose master copy has been lost.
What amazes me is that those who seem to depend on the Bible as their sole source of knowledge about God and faith seem to either discard undeniable facts about the Bible, its composition, history, authroship (nearly all the books are anonymous!), copying, errors, disagreements, additions, deletions , etc., etc. or know nothing about them!
I's just amazing!
Happy to help.
With all that I’ve learned here from both Catholic and non Catholic, I’ll do what I can do to repay that debt.
I think that we’d still need the Church.
There is evidence enough that even with KJV as the ‘standard’, there are so many thousands of interpretations and understandings, that its ineffectiveness as a Sola is very apparent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.