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.
Am I?
I was asking you if you did.
If you do not want to give a direct answer, just say so.
:::Beautified? Alright, he was fairly infirm towards the end of his life and wasn’t the prettiest human around due to his illnesses, wouldn’t you say that this was kind of a cheap shot?
Well, I’m not the one to say that he wasn’t “pretty”. For someone his age I would say he looked remarkably fit. But I’m not talking about his physical characteristics and you know it so, no, it wasn’t a “cheap shot”. I’m talking about wanting to make him a saint.:::
Ah. Beatified, not beautified. I thought that you wanted to pretty him up, or his legacy up, or something.
You watch. The process will take the usual amount of time. Emotions are up and the Church has had 2000 years of dealing with emotions.
There were some extensive abuses of Church practice then. I’m glad that they were set straight. If they were wrong in their application, then they were wrong. It is postulated, after all, that the road to hell is paved with both good intentions and bishops’ skulls.
It’d be nice if you included the entire passage:
John 6:
35
17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41
The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42
and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43
Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
The Father sends all men. Catholics are numbered amongst all men. Whosoever believes in Christ will have eternal life. A true Catholic believes in Christ. Whoever eats the living bread and drinks the living blood will live forever. A true Catholic eats the living bread and drinks the living blood.
Can our Protestant brethren say that they fit all of these requirements, and all those other requirements that Jesus instructed us to fulfill?
:::...that are scornfully dismissed and sometimes vilified by the Reformed when they write contrary to the doctrines of Calvin.
These people aren’t “scornfully dismissed” or “vilified”. :::
Irenaeus was scornfully dismissed. His treatise on heresies was dismissed. And therefore anything that he had to say on the subject.
The way I could have sympathy with this would be if he is speaking motivationally. That is, as opposed to sitting on one's laurels, thinking that God would do everything so we can just sit around. If that's on the right track, then he might be speaking toward our real life experiences, and I agree. While I should have God in the forefront of my mind ALL the time, many times I'll just do something, even something good, without directly thinking of and giving credit to God for His causing of it. Later, intellectually I can say that was God working through me, but in my real experience I do not always go through the steps at the time. (Although, since becoming a Calvinist I'm getting better. :) Anyway, therefore since it is so much easier for us to think in terms of our own wills, perhaps he is saying that this is the place to start, as a practical matter. I'm sure I went over the line somewhere in there, but I was trying to find SOME agreement. :)
... but practically speaking, I am fully aware that I can choose to disobey God or I can follow those promptings that I feel daily. I am confronted with various situations where I feel God moving me to do something. At times, I will do it, at other times, I do not desire to and will not.
It is the same with me, and all of us. Those are our real life experiences, and God uses each of them to draw us closer to Him in the end. Sometimes we DO learn lessons the hard way, but God never promised us a rose garden on earth. I think we may disagree about how much God is acting behind the scenes.
Hearing the Gospel is not enough. Doing the Lord's will is what makes us righteous in God's eyes.
Was it you and Harley who just went around on this subject? If so I read the conversation and it was/is very interesting. I agree that hearing the Gospel is not enough to save, but if doing the Lord's will is what makes us righteous in God's eyes, I assume you mean sanctification, then what of all the verses speaking of God sanctifying us (as opposed to our choosing to do God's will)?:
John 17:15-19 : 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Notice the "them" does not apply to everyone. Jesus sanctifies Himself SO THAT ALL of "them" will be sanctified. None of "them" are lost. There is also:
1 Thess 5:23-24 : 23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.
Notice that the "you" does not refer to everyone. It refers to all true believers. Here again, it is God who does the sanctifying, not us by our choices.
My works do not earn salvation, but at the same time, how can I say I am saved if I do not love? How can I say I am saved if I do not show signs of that freedom from sin?
You can't. A truly good tree MUST produce good fruit. The Bible says so. We agree that perseverance is necessary.
Let us remember, we are new creations, FK. When Paul says "all have sinned", he is talking about the old man.
Yes.
[continuing:] Once we accept Jesus as our Lord and believe in Him and obey Him, we are MADE righteous, not merely declared so.
This goes to our fundamental difference on the basis of ultimate judgment. If it is based on our own works, even with God's help, then how do we not stand alone on those works, or do we? That would imply that there is some sort of standard of works that is "good enough" to get in, while there is some level of works that is not "good enough" to get in. If, OTOH, we are judged SOLELY on the basis of the work of Christ, then no one can say that it is by our works that we are saved, just like the Bible says.
All of that "corrupt man" anthropology is tossed out when we receive the Spirit. We are new creations with a new nature.
But still a remnant remains. That's why we continue to sin even after salvation. If you have been infused with righteousness so that you are ACTUALLY righteous, then (if this makes sense) will the "you" of today be the same "you" that enters Heaven? We would say "no".
I am sorry if I cannot explain this better. God knows I have tried, and I apologize if I still seem to be unclear or am not making sense.
You're doing great. :) I'm the one who is slow. :) I am certain that I understand the Catholic position better than I did before for having talked about it with you. I appreciate that very much.
“I have yet to find a Catholic that accepts Augustine’s A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints.”
It is printed in its entirety at New Advent.
“If you do not want to give a direct answer, just say so.”
I thought I did. I said it wasn’t for me to place the writings of the Fathers anywhere than before my eyes and then gave a personal opinion. Is there something I missed?
I thank you for your intercession, my friend. And may yours be blessed as well.
It is in some cases a watering down. In other cases, it is a substitution or replacement. In some cases it may just be silly; in others it appears evil.
The Mighty Fortress of God has seen many people depart and build little grass huts that blow down in a wind or shake apart when the groups inhabiting them have violent disagreements. Judging by the soundness of the theologies popping up like rabbits in the springtime, we may actually be back to lean-tos or caves out there on the landscape.
You think that ecumenism is possible amongst true Christians? How large a group do you think that that might be?
:::I pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that He bring you to your knees in repenting of the evils of Roman Catholicism.:::
Now that’s a short list. :)
If I remember correctly, you are of the Reformed. If I am incorrect, please dismiss this little discourse.
The good St. F. is either of the elect or not. If he is not of the elect, what good would it do for him to repent of any evil? Why should he?
But these pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest but also the angels who “rejoice in heaven over one repenting sinner more than over ninety-nine righteous that need not repentance,” and also the souls of the saints already at rest. Two instances make this plain. The first is where Raphael offers their service to God for Tobit and Sarah. After both had prayed, the scripture says, “The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the great Raphael and he was sent to heal them both,” and Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s command to help them, says:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Origen says that we are to pray to the saints.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Origen says nothing of the kind, not even close. Origne says that the angels and the "saints at rest" pray along with us, being the saints on earth.
It is precisely the reading of misconceptions into places where it does not exist, and thus twisting, and perverting the meaning that has led Roman Cathlolicism into a host of heresies and false practices.
You are confusing the intercession of angels and glorified saints with a directive to initiate contact with them through prayer or any other invocation, both of which are forbid in Scripture.
God has directed angels and glorified saints to intercede for the saints on earth, but that is not a directive nor permission or license to practice necromacy or invoking angels.
They are two very different actions.
More accurately, is they love the fathers when they can take them out of context to say things they do not actually say, just as Mark did with Origen.
Or any of Augustine's writings against the semi-pelagians, which may as well been addressed to Rome since the 9th century.
I thought I did. I said it wasn’t for me to place the writings of the Fathers anywhere than before my eyes and then gave a personal opinion. Is there something I missed?
I see you still want to obfuscate, so I will rephrase the question.
You stated that the EO church celebrates the "inspiration" of the fathers by God.
Since the Scriptures are "inspired" by God, are the fathers on an even par with the inspiration by God of the Scriptures or a lessor inspiration?
If he is of the Elect, he will repent, as all are called to repent. If he is not of the Elect, I am still obligated to preach the gospel and call him to repentance because God has commanded it for one thing, and because it is through the preaching of the Gospel that God reaches the Elect.
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
“I see you still want to obfuscate, so I will rephrase the question”
I really don’t want to obfuscate at all, MLG. When and if you come to understand Eastern Orthodoxy you will also understand that we don’t look at The Faith at all the way Western Protestants do, which makes theological discussions with Western Protestants difficult.
“Since the Scriptures are “inspired” by God, are the fathers on an even par with the inspiration by God of the Scriptures or a lessor inspiration?”
Well I don’t know if there are gradations of divine inspiration. I doubt it, but The Church determined what would be scripture and what isn’t. Scripture is divinely inspired and so is the work of the Fathers. But the writings of the Fathers are not considered scripture (they are about scripture) and aside from +John Chrysostomos’ Pascal Sermon, I don’t think any of the writings of the Fathers are read at the Divine Liturgy. I suspect that divine inspiration alone isn’t what qualifies a writing as scriptural.
All in all, I’d say divine inspiration is divine inspiration and there are no gradations of it. The Church, however, understands what is scripture and what is not and has proclaimed what is and is not scriptural.
Yes, so? Does any Catholic agree with it?
Not by me. I happen to like Irenaeus. I especially like his comment:
For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables.
Iraeneous-Against Heresy, Book II
I really don’t want to obfuscate at all, MLG. When and if you come to understand Eastern Orthodoxy you will also understand that we don’t look at The Faith at all the way Western Protestants do, which makes theological discussions with Western Protestants difficult.
“Since the Scriptures are “inspired” by God, are the fathers on an even par with the inspiration by God of the Scriptures or a lessor inspiration?”
Well I don’t know if there are gradations of divine inspiration. I doubt it, but The Church determined what would be scripture and what isn’t. Scripture is divinely inspired and so is the work of the Fathers. But the writings of the Fathers are not considered scripture (they are about scripture) and aside from +John Chrysostomos’ Pascal Sermon, I don’t think any of the writings of the Fathers are read at the Divine Liturgy. I suspect that divine inspiration alone isn’t what qualifies a writing as scriptural.
All in all, I’d say divine inspiration is divine inspiration and there are no gradations of it. The Church, however, understands what is scripture and what is not and has proclaimed what is and is not scriptural.
Well, since you view them both as divinely inspired of God, then both must be infallible, yet the church fathers disagreed and contradicted each other plenty in their writings.
So, does God contradict Himself when inspiring writings?
FKWhat? How do you come to that conclusion? First, this would make all the prayers of Jesus a farce, neither of your statements apply to Him
FK, Jesus' prayers were pure intent. Just because we feel ours are "pure" doesn't mean they are. God grants prayers that are pure in heart.
God knows our needs and desires. Yet prayer is what He wants of us because it is a synergistic relationship that He wants from us. We receive Spirit, and we give our spirit to God.
Do you say this because you are certain that God has no intention of seeing to it that you have food today?
No, we pray in hope. The trapped miners who died in September certainly hoped they would be rescued, yet it was their time to die, regardless of their prayer. For all we know, they may be in a much better and happier place now, but they did not want to die; they wanted to live and their prayers, and the prayers of their families and of the entire nation, indeed, resulted in their demise.
Phil 4:19 : And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.
Tell that to the starving and persecuted Christians in Darfur.
1 John 5:14-15 : 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us
Yes, according to His will. And that we are not always privy to. I would say, never. So, we pray in hope, blindly, and accept what God gives us, knowing that He is merciful and just, even if we don't think so.
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.