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.
Well, no! Does this mean that God is like the Blob that sucks us up into some Godly creative energy mass?
“Does this mean that God is like the Blob that sucks us up into some Godly creative energy mass?”
No! :)
Then why is the elder brother of that Synod not a Patriarch of Greece?
Tertullian was a heretic and the Latins, as in other matters, are simply wrong. The quoted position is from the Middle Ages after Rome broke from the other Patriarchates. Rome picked up a lot of odd stuff after the Great Schism. Some of those oddities lead to the Reformation. More later; off to an Armenian dance where I can say all the bad things about Turks I want!
“Then why is the elder brother of that Synod not a Patriarch of Greece?”
Oh, come on Kosta, you know us Greeks. Do you think we’d let one of our own have that sort of title? :)
Off to dance with Armenians and drink to the confusion of the Turks and all Mohammedans!
Darn, and I wasn't invited! :)
The point of Total Depravity is that, until you are born again, until you have been washed with the blood of Jesus, you are totally depraved with no desire for God, no desire to please God, and with no ability to go to God. That is the total depravity of man in his natural state. In other words, there is no Holy good in him UNTIL he is born again.
Now, let’s take your scenario... a child, totally depraved by his parents, completely ignored by them. Now, suddenly, an adoptive parent takes him, cleans him up, loves him like no one ever has, takes care of him and let’s him live with the parent forever. That is the Lord with those he chose. We (and I am including you in this, because I can see in your nature that you love the Lord)having once been lost, wallowing in the mire of sin, have now been washed with the blood of the Lamb, adopted into the family of God, and will live with him, forever.
Tertullian is not a Church Father and more than Martin Luther is.
The mortality of the soul is scriptural: Ezekiel 18:4 "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Those who will remain separated from God for all eternity, due to unrepentant sins, hall be dead. Sin is death.
You must have a definition of "immortality" that is not found in the English dictionary. I won't quote it so as not to raise any straw men. :) In any event, your middle sentence above is internally inconsistent. If you admit that a wicked man "will remain separated from God for all eternity", then you admit that the soul goes on forever and is not annihilated. That is an immortal soul. (And as Harley noted, not eternal, but immortal once created.) You may call this soul "dead to God" if you wish, but that does not affect the fact that such a soul still exists, which is what you deny if you say that the soul is not immortal.
Man's soul was created immortal because it is life which is from God. Had Adam not sinned, he would have never died. Adam's daaged soul is passed on to all of us. God doe snot created damaged souls.
Our source of life is God. Without God we perish. Because we inherit a damaged soul, we are destined to death. God came and made it possible for us to be restored to our original state. In order to do that we must repent of our fallen will, come to Him, and follow His steps.
The unrepentant soul will perish, as Ezekiel states. If the unrepentant departed are to "exist" in a state of complete darkness (separation from Light, which is God), not knowing where they are for all eternity, and you want to call it "life" then, sure, they will be "immortal."
So Irenaesus and Tertullian are heretics for believing in the immortality of all souls??? Tertullian lived from 155-230AD. Irenaesus lived about the same time. And let's not forget the Apostle Creed of the 6th/7th century;
Did it ever occur to you that the eastern church fathers who gave you this material could have been the heretics?
Oh, now we're into quantifying and qualifying who and who is not a church father based upon our own personal preferences??? So, if I understand this correctly, 1) pick and choose which bible verses to believe, 2) pick and choose what theology to believe, 3) pick and choose what church fathers to believe.
No wonder so many are into "free choice".
The mortality of the soul is scriptural: Ezekiel 18:4 "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Of course the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Hell is eternal death.
Mar 9:43 And if your hand offends you, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than to have two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched
Does this mean that in Orthodoxy, the spiritual and the physical are treated the same, or in fact ARE the same? Do you consider a soul in hell to be nonexistent, or do you simply rename it "dead", thus it is mortal? I think that the Latins and the Protestants see the issue of mortality as simply one of existence, not one of destination.
The unrepentant soul will perish, as Ezekiel states. If the unrepentant departed are to "exist" in a state of complete darkness (separation from Light, which is God), not knowing where they are for all eternity, and you want to call it "life" then, sure, they will be "immortal."
On the one hand there is "life" and "death", and on the other hand there is existence. Two separate issues. It just doesn't seem like hell is that big a deal in Orthodoxy.
In addition, what makes you think that the damned will not know where they are? I think it will be clear to them since:
Rom 14:10-11 : 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"
After the judgment, how can anyone not know where he winds up?
“”I would suggest as St. Clement of Rome wrote in his First Epistle to the Corinthians that our goal and obligation is for us to humble ourselves before God.””
I agree with you on this.
“The soul is immortal.” etc, etc.
I am happy to see that you people continued with your lives in theological cyberspace whilst I, I was “Dancing with Armenians”! Wonderful evening, wonderful people, wonderful food, wonderful music. We danced to the last dance and even the young Armenians allowed that “Men like Kolokotronis should live to be 1000 years old!” Ha!
Gee, those Armenian girls were pretty and could dance so well for their husbands!
First, Irenaeus did not believe in, or teach the immortality of the soul by nature. The Orthodox teaching on this has never changed.
Second, Tertullian was a heretic because he embraced Montanism which teaches, among other thing, that the prophesies of the Montanists supercede those of the Apostles. I would call that a heresy, big time. You need to get your facts straight, HD.
What Kolokotronis told you is the Orthodox doctrine, always has been and always will be, because even the people you mention as believing in the so-called "immortality" of the soul (by nature) admit that it is not. Even Platonists in the early Church (i.e. Clement of Alexandria) admitted that the soul is not immortal by nature, but by grface.
The immortality of the soul is not its nature (i.e. it is not created immortal) but it is given by God (grace). If God created immortal souls then we would be God. You will just have to do a little more Church Fathers studying before you get the whole picture.
The problem with Tertullian and others on the Latin side (the root of St. Augustine's error, the fillioque error, etc.) is that their misconceptions always started with the poor understanding of Greek, and these, in turn, (mis)led to doctrinal errors.
I am not sure where you get this idea or what you mean by this. God created man as body and soul. This is our "natural" state. Neither the body without the soul, nor the soul without the body is how God created us. We cannot separate the two and have man.
I think that the Latins and the Protestants see the issue of mortality as simply one of existence, not one of destination
The Orthodox deal with "nature" or essence, not with destinations, FK. Is man immortal by nature? If a soul is created immortal, then it is divine by nature. The Church always believed that man is made immortal by grace. Christ tells us "I am Life." We are given life in Christ. It is not a property we have by nature.
In addition, what makes you think that the damned will not know where they are?
What will they "know" separated from God who is everything and all? What will they "see" being separated from Light? What will they "feel" being separated from Love? The entire hope of Christianity rests on the knowledge that those who come to Christ will continue to live, see, feel, love. How will the condemned be any different from a rock? Is the prospect of being separated from everything for all eternity not torture itself?
After the judgment, how can anyone not know where he winds up?
I would worry about that before the Judgment.
I am not sure where you get this idea or what you mean by this.
At physical death, the physical body returns to dust, meaning nothingness. The physical body is mortal. I was asking if you thought that the same thing happens to the condemned soul at physical death (or judgment) because you say it is also mortal.
Is man immortal by nature?
Spiritually, "Yes". Adam had an immortal soul when he was created. The fact that he sinned did not change that.
If a soul is created immortal, then it is divine by nature. The Church always believed that man is made immortal by grace.
Where does that rule come from? If you are made immortal by grace, do you then have the divine nature or essence? Of course not. I don't see the distinction.
We are given life in Christ. It is not a property we have by nature.
And while you make a true statement, we say that this has nothing to do with whether humans have immortal souls. Is not satan immortal in his condemnation? So is the human soul of the reprobate.
FK: "In addition, what makes you think that the damned will not know where they are?"
What will they "know" separated from God who is everything and all?
They will know THAT, plus the reality of their existence in hell.
What will they "see" being separated from Light? What will they "feel" being separated from Love?
I think it's Rev. 20 that tells us about the "Lake of Fire". In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we are clearly told that the rich man was well aware of his surroundings. The condemned will feel whatever causes weeping and gnashing of teeth (e.g. fire).
How will the condemned be any different from a rock? Is the prospect of being separated from everything for all eternity not torture itself?
Rocks do not experience torture, so again I don't see how you can say this since it appears to clearly contradict.
"Dancing with Armenians". It sounds like it should be a TV show or a movie at the least. :O)
“”Dancing with Armenians””
Its like “Dances with Wolves”, only different!
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.