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.
He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. [Mat 5:45]
I beg to differ on both accounts. St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of God and not of a separate Trinitarian Hypostasis, i.e. God (or Lord, vasileos) the Holy Spirit. In St. Paul's case, the Spirit is subordained to God (the Father), not co-substantial with Him. St. Paul's concept of the Holy Spirit is perfectly Judaic, being God's energy rather than a Divine Hypostasis.
Christians eventually developed the concept of grace that represents God uncreated enegries, as the understanding of the Trinitarian formula evolved and the Holy Spirit was recognized as a Divine Hypostasis and God Himself that estows grace.
The Greek terms for "self" is autos. Depending on the Greek gender of the word (which the English language doesn't have), the appropriate pronoun will be he/she/it. Some English-bible translations use "it" others "he" (i.e. NIV) when referring to the Holy Spirit, which is grammatically correct.
There is nothing in St. Paul's writing to indicate that he speaks of the Holy Spirit as a "he" because the Greek word pneuma (spirit) is of neutral gender (neither masculine nor feminine), so the appropriate pronoun is it.
The fact that it appears as a "he" in some English translations shows that some have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the infallible word of God so as to make it fit out theology.
Very appropriate. Thank you.
Is God powerful enough to save them all? Is God loving enough to save them all? Does God care that not all will come to him? Or does God have another plan for those who he knows will not become children of God?
God has said that he will save his own. The fact that some will not be saved means that they were never his own. They were his creation, but not his children. That is the difference. Man cannot thwart God. Man cannot surprise God. Man does not have a free will to choose God.
Believe what you want.
Still having trouble with the idea of God creating people that he does not ‘own.’ How does God do that?
Agree, but it's just the same for us Calvinists. We keep getting accused that man has no will when in fact we make it very clear that man indeed does have a will. Catholics believe man must cooperate with God's grace exercising their will. Calvinists believe that will is bound in sin and cannot cooperate with God until it has been set free. A fine but important technical point.
We believe, however, that God reaches out with His Grace to all, not those elected from the cosmic bingo barrel.
Well if God reaches out with His Grace to all, why did you choose and not someone else? Wasn't it because of your efforts?
Not a matter of owning, just a matter of doing as he wishes with his creation. Our problem is that we elevate man to a higher plane that God does. We are just a creation, higher than animals, to be sure, but still a creation. It is only when HE, of his own accord, elevates some to a saved level, are they worthy of praising God, worshipping God, loving God, and living with God. Then, and only then, are we children of God.
Protestantism is anything goes because every individual makes up his or her own theology and his or her own god just the way he or she likes it, just as they make up their own speed limit, rules and what not. It's narcissistic and egocentric.
Not only idiotic but untrue. Are you a graduate of the Goebbels School Of Propaganda.
You mean like some men, who leave a trail of children who never know their fathers! Some role model this would be! Just disown them, as if you had nothing to do with them...Yup, I made them, but they're not my children. To hell with them (no pun intended)!
The Prots will tell you God does not answer to anyone; He does as He pleases (every man's dream!). A man-made tyrant, deadbeat father and a narcissistic nut. Some "god" that is.
Protestants....ugh
Let me quote you: Iditiotic. Was it meant to be?
You can't put together more than a one-liner insult. I am not interested in your bad mood. This discussion is over. Go pick on someone else, or, better yet, pay someone to listen to you.
Your belief? God doesn’t have the power to save everyone, so he sends out the message hoping that some will choose believe. The others are lost and he is incapable of saving them because they do not believe. Your god is weak. Your god sits there hoping that some will turn to him. Your god can’t communicate to you, so he has a hierarchy so that his message maybe will cascade down to the masses so they will believe. Your god loses so many and is incapable of saving them. Your god gives no assurance of salvation because he is too weak to do so. Your god has to trust you to have the wisdom and impetus to change your way so that you will believe in him. Your god is too weak to change you himself, and cannot do it without your will. You are more powerful that your god. You make your god dance to your tune.
My God did not waste one drop of His blood when He was nailed to the cross.
Yup.
Wrong.
[H]e sends out the message hoping that some will choose believe
Wrong again.
The others are lost and he is incapable of saving them because they do not believe
Wrong, over and over.
Your god is weak
By whose scale? Yours?
Your god sits there hoping that some will turn to him
False
Your god can’t communicate to you, so he has a hierarchy so that his message maybe will cascade down to the masses so they will believe
Not true.
Your god loses so many and is incapable of saving them
Not true again.
No, actually, a compassionate sigh. How can people be so wrong to love a god made in their image, a tyrant who makes humans just so they would burn in hell and call him "love?" Pittiful.
I think probably the simpliest, or simplified, way to see the difference is not in the manner in which God acts or is experienced, Grace, but in our difference in that we believe God’s Grace is for all is children, all humans.
In other words, all the love, grace, the drawing toward Him (and the suffering that sin and separation bring) that you see for the elect, we see for all.
So, simplifying: it’s not so much the how but the whom in which we differ from Calvinism.
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.