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 was not my argument. "Kolokotronis" said they were both inspired, therefore I was questioning " Kolokotronis".
His comments are contrary to yours:
The Apostolic and Church Fathers are not considered inspired;
"Kolokotronis", said otherwise.
So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?
For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Reformed approach, our getting exactly what God wants us to have, is a "bad" thing. :) And knowing that I have already described many uses of prayer other than getting stuff, how would you then describe the "use" of prayer and how is this superior to the Reformed approach?
Jesus taught us to petition God. Calvin teaches us that God has set everything in stone and nothing that we do can change that. I see it as a philosophical divide between them.
Well, did Jesus also teach that God has no idea what He wants to do and is waiting to be led by us through our prayers? :) That seems like the inevitable conclusion. Either that, or that God has an idea of what is best for us, but then we correct Him with our prayers. Neither option sounds appealing to me. :)
THAT is very interesting because I recently had a conversation with Kosta and Kolo about this, but in the context of where the OT righteous went immediately after they died. My contention was that they went straight to Heaven, and offered the evidence of the Transfiguration. IOW, I agree with you that they WERE real and alive. In order to support the Orthodox position that no one went to Heaven before the crucifixion (anyone correct me if I'm wrong), I remember the response being that Moses and Elijah possibly were indeed manifestations, and not real or alive. So, my question is: does Catholicism support that the OT righteous went directly to Heaven upon death, and that Jesus' sacrifice retroactively applied to them at the time of their deaths?
I don't think there is any doubt that Moses and Elijah were real at the Transfiguration, and not manifestations, or spiritual apparitions.
While the OT and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, as well as Peter in his 2nd Epistle are clear that prior to the Crucifixion, the spirits of the OT saints went to Abraham's Bosom, which was one compartment of "sheol", with "hades" being the other where the rich man was, I don't see where it is neccesary to think Moses and Elijah were manifestations, and not real.
Angels are noncoporeal beings, however, in many of the examples of angelophanies in Scripture, they appear in real bodies looking like men, in bodies God prepared for them for the specific purpose God sent them for.
I have no problem at all seeing that the God who created the entire Cosmos, ex nihilo, could have temporarily given Moses his body for the purpose of Moses being present at the Transfiguration. Since Elijah was taken without dying, he would have still had a body.
The two ideas seem in conflict, don’t they?
I don't think so. One thing that leads me to think that His sacrifice was sufficient for everyone is hypothetically imagining what would happen if God decided to save one more person beyond the original plan. Would Jesus then have to do something more to cover him? Obviously not. However, since we know that His sacrifice was only efficacious for some we have to decide whether that was by plan, or is that just the way it turned out based on man's decisions. The Reformed believe that God has a fully comprehensive plan for the universe and He is executing that plan flawlessly within time. If that is true, and if God is free to decide whom He wants to be with Him in Heaven, then it MUST have been by design that the sacrifice was only intended to be efficacious for some, i.e. only FOR some.
God's plan governs to whom the sacrifice applies without regard to how powerful the sacrifice actually was.
Uh huh.
Again, that is not saying there is license to pray to angels. RCism reads that into it where it does not exist.
“Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s command to help them, says:
“Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One,” and shortly after, “I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One.”
So Raphael catches prayers directly to God in some sort of heavenly bucket and then presents them to God? I thought that Jesus was the only intermediary in Reformed doctrine. This gets better and better.
You are confusing the role Christ stands in as the Intermediary as a defense attorney for the Redeemed, with those who offer intercessory prayer, and then twist the meanings for license to practice necromancy and the invoking of angels, both of which are forbidden by God.
You clearly are ignorant of the Reformed positions.
Try to answer the question, if you would.
I already did. I cannot help the fact that you are having a hard time comprehending a straightforward answer.
I suggest you read the answer already given again and again, and again until you get it.
Don't forget pope Mike.
***When people privately interpret Scripture; hunting and pecking verse in order to construct a theology that is different from all previous theologies, it seems to me that this is constructing one’s own personal god.***
Name someone who did this. I can think of a couple, but neither name is Calvin. Who did you have in mind?
I don't think the Church ever says that any part of the Bible is "wrong." Misinterpreted, yes, imperfect, yes, but wrong, no. I must remind yout of how the Church understood and still to this day understand the nature of the scriptures (my emphases):
[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit. [from Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America]
If the Bible is "perfect" than the Bible is "God." That leads to another Protestant error: bibliolatry.
the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text
They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK. The ratio is very lobsided in favor of the Septuagint. How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?
Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today
You must be joking! Being a Protestant is not subscribing to or eschewing "traditions of men"(except one's own).
And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it
Well, the New Testament prohibits it, and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)
I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say? And if he did say what you claim, I am pinging him for the benefit of his own doubt, so that he may elaborate.
Why, the saints pray incessantly, as the Bible teaches.
The Anabaptists were not well liked by the Protestants or the Catholics during the Reformation. I don’t know a whole lot about them except to say they held some rather strange views. However, I’m not sure that the Anabaptists isn’t a splinter group from other Baptists. If you compare the London Baptist confession against Anabaptist beliefs, they sound like two separate groups.
I’m not defending them, simply stating that I wouldn’t lump all Baptists into the same mold. Both John Piper and Rick Warren are Southern Baptist and they are like night and day.
Oh, please, if God wanted to contain His glory He could. That is just one of those "who's gonna outdo himself glorifying God" phrases. If God doesn't need anything then He certanily doesn't need our praise either.
Obviously, He desires good for us, but He doesn't force Himself on us.
Please remember that the person who wrote this also wrote the following:
Starving/raped children in Darfur are fools for Christ's sake? Please get real.
“”Kolokotronis”, said otherwise. So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?
I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say? And if he did say what you claim, I am pinging him for the benefit of his own doubt, so that he may elaborate.”
Ah, Kosta mou, here’s what I said, at 10146:
“HD, where did you get that idea? The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia. For example, this Kontakion from the feast of +Cyril of Jerusalem:
“With your lips, O wise Cyril, And through divine inspiration You enlightened your people To the worship of the one Trinity, Undivided in essence, yet divided in Hypostases. Wherefore rejoicing, we celebrate your all-holy memory, Offering you as our intercessor before God.”
I also said this, at 10198:
“Are you putting their writings on par with the Scriptures?”
Am I? Its not my place to put the writings of the Fathers anywhere save before my eyes. I will say that I think the Fathers are often far more clear than the scriptures, but that’s a personal opinion. For example, look at this, Homily XX on Ephesians Of +John Chrysostomos:....”
And this at 10216:
“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.”
Personally, I think the Protestants use the word inspired differently than we do, or ascribe more “importance to it” than we do. Given the way they regard the Bible, I suppose I can understand how that can be.
Sorry, but God was doing very nicely for the gazillions years before we came along. He has His angels to praise Him-He doesn't need us.
Starving/raped children in Darfur are fools for Christ's sake? Please get real.
Well, why don't you just throw the bible in the trash and make up your own religion if you're not going to believe the scriptures? After all, that's what the Gnostics did. Just call it "Kosta's Orthodox Church of Brotherly Love" or something like that.
Man is inhuman to man; it doesn't matter whether one is a non-Christian and the other is. The book of Philemon is written to a slave owner about his runaway slave. Paul didn't criticize either one. Man's inhumanity to man doesn't negate God's love. God doesn't promise any of us a rose garden and we are all fallen creatures so we can be nasty to other at times.
I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say?
Here is his initial statement apeaking of the writings of the church fathers, that led to mine and others questions:
To: HarleyD; stfassisi; Missey_Lucy_Goosey
"While they give insight into great theological truths their writings are not and never were considered "inspired" by the Church.
HD, where did you get that idea? The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia. For example, this Kontakion from the feast of +Cyril of Jerusalem:
"With your lips, O wise Cyril,
And through divine inspiration
You enlightened your people
To the worship of the one Trinity,
Undivided in essence, yet divided in Hypostases.
Wherefore rejoicing, we celebrate your all-holy memory,
Offering you as our intercessor before God.
10,146 posted on 10/30/2007 7:11:00 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
Wonderful! considering that I went to confession yesterday and spent time in Eucharistic Adoration praying for people like you,I guess that makes me the elect in your world
I don’t know my future and I want to be humble with the hope that God may accept me into heaven
I refuse to spend time thinking about if I am the elect or not and simply “try” and love ,live in the truth .The more I interact with people such as yourself ,the more God shows me that I need to sacrifice my time to pray for people such as yourself
My prayer for you is to pick up the cross instead of attacking the Catholic Church out of your ignorance.
Good Night !
I wish you a blessed evening!
AMEN! Very well stated.
"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" -- Isaiah 14:24-27 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39
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.