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.
That's right as far as I know. I was referring to the Latin Church specifically, and the Apostolic Church generally.
On an open thread, it is tolerable to say a belief is a lie, a heresy, a joke or whatever - even "satanic." It is tolerable to say a religious figure or author is crazy, a heretic, a liar, etc.
But it is not tolerable to denigrate another Freeper simply because "making it personal" tends to ignite flame wars.
Everyone:
Thank you. I will abide. To all: I’m sorry for taking it down this far.
To kosta50: I am sorry for calling you a heretic. You have differing beliefs than I do. That is all.
As FK stated, once again the author's argument is that "Nobody really understand Greek like the Greeks." This is a rather lame excuse. I'm sure there have been several non-Greek scholars throughout the ages that could understand Greek just as I'm sure Martha Stewart could whip up a great Greek dinner.
The author also uses St. Ignatius as if Ignatius was confirming that he did not believe in a hell. What absolute tripe! Here is what St. Ignatius has to say on the subject:
The author never addresses the numerous places where our Lord Jesus talks about the fiery pits of hell and how people will be sent there. The argument that "it's not talked about in the Old Testament." doesn't wash because Christians use the whole canon to get the complete picture-not just the old. The fact that our Lord (not John, James, Peter or Paul) talked about hell more than anything else should confirm the fact there is such a place.
In a way Kolo is right. People wouldn't be so quick to embrace ecumenicalism if the truly understood the differences.
That is a good question. You can read the church fathers here. I've seen St. Anselm referred to (somewhere) as a Church father but he lived much later than the 6th century. This is a rather confusing issue in my mind.
I would agree with you that I believe the true church fathers lived from the 6th century and earlier. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their writings if they were not "Saints" simply because there is much information to be gleaned from their writings. The Catholic Church even admits that Tertullian doctrine and writings for the most part were good although he was at odds with the Church. Saint or not, all their writings do not raise to the same level as scripture according to Church teaching.
No, it wasn't Calvin. I believe it was John who stated:
Harley, you just made my day!
This is, of course, very grossly simplified and only FYI.
I would encourage folks to go and read, not only the scriptures, but the church fathers. They are rather clear and to suggest they did not believe in the immortality of the soul is just plain wrong.
I will add I am a little confused in the Orthodox position. On the one hand you're saying that the soul is mortal and then on the other hand you're saying all souls will be before God living in some sort of separated thing. The Orthodox doctrinal position on this matter is inconsistent, is not in compliance with scripture, goes against the majority of the church fathers, and are against the teachings of the Church prior to the Orthodox schism of the 1000+ century. I would say that it isn't the Protestants who are holding the heretical view this time.
No, FK, death is a state.
At what point does a mortal soul become immortal?
When it is restored by grace.
I think it is the Orthodox view that the vast majority of the saved do not reach theosis during physical life. If that is true, and the immortal soul is determined by accepting grace, then when does this happen?
Grace is given. We are made alive and immortal through God's grace and nothing we do merits it.
Can a person' mortal soul be transformed into an immortal soul, only to revert back again to a mortal soul?
We can always fall form grace by rejecting God. Adam and Eve did. We are their offspring, their nature.
“...just as I’m sure Martha Stewart could whip up a great Greek dinner.”
I sincerely doubt that, HD!
I’m at the office and have a busy day ahead, but this whole discussion could become very interesting; more tonight with any luck. In haste, however, I can understand your vehemence. If Orthodoxy is correct, its good bye to all that “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” phronema of the West. The opposite, of course, is also true.
“In a way Kolo is right. People wouldn’t be so quick to embrace ecumenicalism if the truly understood the differences.”
No “in a way” about it, HD.
Do you believe Jesus atoned for everyone without exception?
....Or do you believe that God creates and wills "all" of us to be His children?
What makes you think man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?
Another words...We have to freely accept God’s will
Is man born of Adam, born with a sin nature and love of sin and darkness, of the capacity to freely accept God's Will?
because we love God’s will
John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Man born of Adam is predisposed to serving himself and sin, and will not seek God, nor will he believe God.
John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Well then God must be confused because the writings of the Fathers are often contradictory.
No, FK, death is a state.
OK, but what does that MEAN? What is the difference between death as a "state" and what you have heard Harley and me describe as an immortal soul? The Bible is absolutely clear that a soul may be "dead" to God, BUT it is certainly "alive" to actual experience in hell. If all the Bible verses discussing this, and there are many, are ALL WRONG, then Orthodoxy is hoarding to itself some of the greatest secrets of Christianity. You even leave your Latin brethren completely in the dark. Where is the correct text of the Bible in English? The percentage of Orthodox who use English as a first language can't be THAT negligible. :)
Plus, isn't it the duty of your clergy to carry the message to all nations, including those that speak English? According to the arguments I've heard, plus Kolo's article, English speakers don't have a chance.
FK: "At what point does a mortal soul become immortal?"
When it is restored by grace.
Well I KNOW that. :) When does that happen within time?
Grace is given. We are made alive and immortal through God's grace and nothing we do merits it.
I believe you added that the grace must be accepted. I'm asking when that happens. For example, there is a watershed moment in our theology when the believer receives/accepts God's grace and then asks Jesus into his heart. Now, I realize that Apostolics are much more into a process system, however there has to be a moment within time at which the soul turns from mortal to immortal. IOW, does it just follow the same ebb and flow of one's permeable salvation status? My guess would be "yes". My guess would be that it is completely within Orthodox theology for a person's soul to be mortal one minute, then immortal the next, then mortal again the following minute. If true, doesn't that throw out the actual meaning of the word?
OK, I'm dumb. Who is pope Mike? :)
Pope Michael I
Read about him here:
http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2006/02/catholics-and-kansas-nuts-falling-from.html
Thanks for the info, I don't take it as a criticism at all, but as insight into the protocol here, which is very much appreciated.
BTW, I see you are relatively new to FR and you are a welcome addition. Your postings are excellent.
Thanks again.
As I have already explained, thsoe angels in John's Book of the Revelation who take the prayers of the saints into the Throneroom of God do so as messengers, directed by God.
Where Rome makes it's fatal mistake is to twist that one example into a license to pray to angels, which takes a quantum leap to arrive at that conclusion. Not really, as is often the case, Rome begins with it's own concepts contrived by men and reads them back into passages such as you cited in Revelation where it does not exist, just as Rome did when contriving the "two swords doctrine", and a host of others.
I think that the self-identified Reformed Redeemed are going to need a very good defense attorney
Our Mediator is Christ, who we trust exclusively to have done everything neccessary for our Redemption upon the Cross to which we can add not one single thing, and Who clothes us in His Righteousness, as a Delightfully Robed Bride perfectly acceptable to the Father, not on account of any single thing we have done, but because of what Christ did on our behalf as our Kinsman Redeemer.
I suspect that that indwelling heartburn will turn out to be just that.
Au contraire, when Christ asks you: "Why should I allow YOU into My heaven?", and you say, "I trusted the pope, I did good works, I finshed the work you began on the Cross, I ate your real, actual flesh and drank your real, actual blood...", it will be sad indeed when you hear the words, "Wrong answer, away with you worker of iniquity, I never knew you."
Catholics do not practice necromancy
Sure Roman Catholics practice necromancy. Necromancy is the attempt to contact the spirits of those who have departed this space/time continuum, which is precisely what you do when praying to saints who have passed from this life.
There is really little excuse, with the immense archives and websites available for all, even the Paulines, to really dig in and truly understand Catholicism.
I do understand Roman Catholicism, which is precisely why I know it is apostate.
Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.
Yet, Honorius I was called "vicar of Christ" by the Roman Catholic church, when in fact he was an antichrist, which can be said for a large number of popes of Rome.
I suggest that you go learn what Calvinist soteriology actually teaches rather than the gross misrepresentation you presented.
Calvinism believes and teaches exactly what the Scriptures AND Augustine especially taught, which is that the fall of Adam, you know, the doctrine of Original Sin, completely marred the desire of man toward a love of sin and darkness and not of God.
John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
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.