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 goes back a tad farther than Augustine.
I have no beef with your belief in the Trinity
Yet you beef about the Trinity.
That's what I mean OR. You argue you're ok with different beliefs - that's an important thing in your view - then you argue against different beliefs.
It's just an inconsistent argument.
Certainly Mary declared herself a handmaid. She accepted. Gabriel did not label her as such. She self-described. A handmaid is a servant, unquestionably. Not a slave, and not a robot slave. She did, of her own volition, with the Holy Spirit already in her.
Preordained? Quite possibly. But the fact is that she, of her own free will accepted.
First, God is the God of the living. As Matthew 22:32 says: “ ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.’” Our souls never die or “sleep” but after death we are judged. Those that enter Heaven live in joy forever. These are saints. Also, when Moses and Elijah appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration, were they not alive in God or where those simply manifestations that Jesus called forth? It’s clear they were alive.
After a whole chapter describing the ancient people of faith in Hebrews 11, Hebrews 12:1 goes on to say, “Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses...” What possible interpretation can anyone give but that those who have died are aware of us and are watching us? The saints in Heaven continuously intercede for mankind (CCC 956).
You are, of course, quite correct, except that I would, as a Catholic, not refer to God as mine or ours.
I am His. I am His Creature, made in His image. There are many people here who seem to refer to their own personal god made in their own personal image while making up their own personal theologies.
Nice to hear from you. Are we on speaking terms again?
LOL!
Me too.
Hebrewa 9:
[27] And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Will your exercise of "free will" change this?
:::My church isn’t even a Calvinist church, but I can assure you that we have no “long, flowing hair” wafting about on stage distracting the congregation from their worship. :) Our pulpit is a waft-free zone!!!:::
Well, the Crystal Cathedral is definitely not a waft free zone. Dr. Robert Schuller and his son both are ordained in the Reformed Church in America, which has as its belief system:
The final authority in the Reformed faith is Holy Scripture, the living Word of God, spoken to everyone through the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit takes the Word of God and makes it real and actual in our lives. This has always been and will always be the authentic wellspring of Reformed faith.
The following confessions and creeds are statements of Reformed beliefs:
Three historic documents—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort
Three historic creeds—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed
I’m not sure how I’d square Dr. Schuller’s Sunday morning performances with some of the folks here, so I’m guessing that there is Reformed and there is Reformed!!!
:::I surely agree that some of the mega-churches are over-hyped and have a watered-down message in order to “reach” (cater to) the most people. This is ridiculous and unscriptural. God’s word is God’s word and should be preached regardless of how many people will like it at the first hearing. The truth can’t be compromised like that. Even if milk is on the menu, there are good ways to serve it and bad ways too.:::
We have further agreement on the new mega churches. But where we may differ is on the menu - we prefer to get to the meat of the matter. :)
:::A seal is a mark, a “tattoo”, something that says we are ‘God’s property’. It is not something that prevents you from falling away. Practically speaking, people who have been “sealed” have fallen away and are no longer Christian, so this reality proves that interpretation incorrect.:::
Absolutely correct. There is a young lady who works for our company that has a tattoo of the Virgin Mary on the right side of her neck, along with several crosses. She is also a libertine druggie and an aggressive predatory lesbian.
A book cover may diverge from the book’s contents.
If I am misusing the definitions of the Church, by all means please correct me. I guess that I’m still confused as to which ones I misused.
Could you point them out to me again please?
:::Of course I haven’t sold my will and intellect to the Magisterium.:::
Neither have we. We subjugate ourselves to God using the instructions and the institution that God, and then the person of Christ, left to us.
No selling, no buying. Just reaching out for the grace of God so that we can experience His promises to us.
Our exercise of free will obviously does not include whether or not we die. Nor does it preclude our being judged (in spite of some folks’ opinions who post here).
Are you saying that Mary had no free will at all about this in spite of her acceptance of it?
Not the addenda.
"Gave" is more appropriate.
Code Of Canon Law Book 3, Part o
Canon 752
While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
Go along or get out.
Perhaps it's easy for you to forget; no one can read your mind. But it's not so easy for Bible-believing Christians to forget the errors you've already admitted you made.
Mark, you wrongly attributed your church's belief in "infused" righteousness to the Calvinists, when "infused" righteousness is the belief and statement of your own catechism (as you were shown from the catechism). However, the word "infused" appears nowhere in Scripture, nor in any Protestant denomination I know of, most especially not among the Reformed.
As the Bible tells us, we are saved by Christ's "imputed" righteousness, and not our own. His obedience saves; His righteousness saves; His sacrifice saves, which are "imputed" to us (reckoned to our account) by God alone.
You were corrected in post 10,043 which also listed the other posts that corrected your error -- Harley (post 9,909), Frumanchu (10,027), me (post 9,921).
And finally, you ADMITTED your mistake in post #10,050...
"MARKBSNR: You are correct. I was not using the correct terminology or definitions..."
That is not being argued. What is being argued is that the souls who have departed from this earthly existence are referred to as "dead", and are not to be attempted to be contacted on any level, as it is prohibited by God in the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Departed souls are referred to as "the dead".
Because the souls of departed saints are alive in eternity is not license to break the commandment of God against attempts to contact the souls of those who have departed this space/time continuum.
Neither have we.
Of course you have. You have to take what the magesterium teaches you on pure, blind faith, or else you are relying on "private interpretation".
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.