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.
Thanks for taking up the slack on Pelagius.
You’re a lucky guy, congrats.
And, somehow, I knew you’d have heard the old joke..
{^_^}
I am in the middle of a study of the last 500 years of Christian thought, and these sentiments match exactly what I have learned of the progression from the Renaissance Christian philosopher all the way up to his progeny, the modern non-believer. That's why I am so taken aback that you, a Christian, would hold to these views. From what I have learned so far in the study, the "leap of faith" philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, et al., along with the logical postivism movement, led directly to today's secular humanism. The REASON is that in "leap of faith" philosophies there is no REASON as a basis in truth upon which to build. With "leap of faith" anyone can start or end anywhere he pleases, and claim that he cannot be proved wrong. There is no core truth as to explaining man's existence and his relationship to God.
The alternative to blind faith is to follow the example of Pascal's wager that it is simply "safer" to believe than not to believe.
Not at all. The alternative is Reformation thinking which provided REAL answers because it recognized that perspicuous scripture intended to reveal those answers. Reformation thinking took the Bible more literally and gave man a more literal basis in truth from which to start in his quest to find his place in the universe. Less mysticism, more literal truth.
The Bible is not a historically reliable source. It's importance and authority concern the truth about God, not the world, and it is accepted on blind faith.
Ay Caramba! :) If the Bible does not also contain the truth about man then how do you even know who you are? What good is knowing about God if you cannot even know about yourself and where you came from?
If the Holy Spirit leads everyone than everyone with the "indwelling spirit" is "inspired."
No, "inspiration" for these purposes connotes infallibility. Neither I, nor any of my Reformed brethren claim infallibility in our teachings. The Apostles and the other Biblical writers, however, were infallible in their WRITINGS.
God did not appoint everyone who believes to interpret, or to be an apostle, or a teacher...
I'm not aware that interpretation is part of the Biblical list. Besides, it isn't really that we interpret, but that interpretation is given to us. We fallible humans apprehend that interpretation in different ways, hence differences among good Christians.
And how do you know the Apostles were inspired? Is it not because they are the ones who wrote the New Testament?
No, it is because of passages like this:
Matt 10:18-20 : 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Now, in my view this is also written to all Christians, but in the narrow view this shows Godly inspiration of a special type directly to the Apostles.
Was it not the Church that canonized it as scripture? So, you accept, hands down, the Church hierarchical decision that the NT is scripture, yet you deny the Church the guidance of the HS?
While I would agree that Canonization was a good thing for Christianity, I still do not understand the magic behind it. You seem to say there was chaos beforehand, and I say that it was virtually settled by that time. So, we just disagree there.
I do not deny that the Holy Spirit leads the members of the Apostolic Church. Of course He does. But equally obvious is that this nevertheless results in disagreements among good Christians, even WITHIN the Apostolic Church. Since I do not recognize the authority of your hierarchy, and since the Apostolic hierarchy is not even in communion with itself, I see no superiority in it to the Spirit's leading of the individual Christian.
Retrovision is always 20/20, FK. Do you honestly believe that if some backwoods redneck started to preach and claim he is the Son of God that people would believe him?
There might be some, but the Holy Spirit also gives discernment corporately. In Orthodoxy, I think I remember that if a Bishop or council made a ruling it would be nullified if the laity refused to follow it. This idea sounds reasonable to me, and the same thing would apply in the case of some crazy preacher in a Bible-believing CHURCH.
I actually tried it while walking in NY. I asked a couple of guys trimming a bush next to the Hilton how to get to Carnegie Hall. They said “Take a left and go three blocks and you’re there.” Talk about a spoiled joke :>)
“It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” [Act 13:46]
Notice how the writer says “since you repudiate...” We are responsible ofr our actions, HD. That responsibility comes from our ability to make choices that are our own. ***
I’m sorry, the above statement may or may not contain any factual information. Any attempt to interpret this writing on your own may cause you to become a self-serving demi-God, capable of scriptural interpretation to serve your own heretical needs. Do not use this scripture verse (or any other) without direct written consent by the author. The use, or misuse, of this scripture or any other scripture (or not-scripture, as the belief may be) to prevent rashes, plagues, or skin conditions is strictly prohibited. Void where prohibited by law, or The Laws, or The Laws that might be, if scripture were actually true. If continued use causes irritation, discontinue use and consult a Pharisee. :>)
Your God? Your own personal God? Do you keep him on the hall stand and rub his head for luck as you go by?
LOL! No, my answer was in response to your recent multiple use of the term "Reformed God" (implicitly as opposed to the legitimate God). I was simply answering in kind. :)
This is a huge difference between the Catholics and so many Protestants. We see ourselves as His creatures; His creations and therefore subservient to Him.
How can your position be that man is subservient when most people choose to thwart God's will? It is Reformers who believe in true subservience, since the Master always gets His way.
I don’t believe that I said anything about maintenance. I believe that I said that since the Reformed God preordains everything then the Reformed God is responsible for everyone’s actions and therefore satan’s actions as well. You cannot have it both ways. Either God is responsible for every action or He is not.
I only need one way. :) God is not responsible for every action, but He is in control of every result. God preordains everything, but He doesn't carry out the actions. We carry out our own actions, as well as satan does. When something unpleasant is needed, God simply forgoes His opportunity to prevent the occurrence of the thing. If God has no duty to prevent, then I am correct. If God DOES have a duty, then you are right.
Paul acknowledges the need for perseverance. Everyone agrees on that need. We disagree on who generates it and if there are any guarantees behind it. But during life Paul also said that he had finished the race and awaited his crown. That is as certain as certain gets for any human. I think he knew the crown was inevitable for him, but here he clearly says it so we all can be sure it was during his life.
FK: :::Sure, a lost person can hear the word and “believe”, but that doesn’t make him saved. :::
So Jesus lied when He said: [John 11, Matt. 10, 11, 16]
No, Jesus didn't lie, but He didn't have "believe" in quotes either. In these passages, Jesus is obviously talking about true belief. Later, He acknowledges that there are posers who merely CLAIM belief, such as in the "Lord, Lord" passage. They had a false belief and were not saved. They never denied themselves, etc.
I don’t know who you are referring to when you speak about uninspired men who can save the laity. It certainly isn’t the Church or its clergy.
Sure it is. Once a Catholic in good standing commits a mortal sin he goes from saved to unsaved. The only way back is to have his sin absolved by a clergyman in confession. Otherwise, he remains lost, outside the Church, and damned. God can always grant a special dispensation I suppose, but the normal result is that the person will wind up in hell. In this way the layman is dependent on the clergy for his salvation, along with the performance of baptism by a clergyman.
(Kosta, I remember our talking about baptism before, so the very last part doesn't apply to you. :)
If certitude is not certitude, then what is it? Possible certitude? Half certitude? Fractional certitude?
As I said, it is human certitude, as opposed to Divine certitude. If I drop a hammer I am certain it will fall. However, what if God chooses that exact moment to perform a miracle and suspend the hammer in mid air? This in no way diminishes the good basis for my human certitude. Otherwise, there is no such thing as certitude for the human on anything.
The problem with ‘knowing’ with absolute certainty is that there is no objective and ascertainable evidence that that knowledge is correct.
That's why absolute certainty is reserved for the Divine. Human certainty is achievable through the scriptures.
You certainly seem either 1) to misrepresent the position or 2) cannot comprehend the position. Calvin and Luther talks quite extensively about man's will. In fact Luther wrote a book, "Bondage of the Will". Does that give you a clue?
Man has a will. Man's will just wants to do the things that are not pleasing to God. God must change that will. That is what original sin and being born again is all about.
What we're really discussing is that you believe man's will to be fully capable of pleasing God. That is not what the scriptures tell us.
But, HD, if man "just wants to do the things that are not pleasing to God" isn't that also God's will?!? Isn't that what God supposedly "preordained" man must do.HD: Man has a will. Man's will just wants to do the things that are not pleasing to God
HD: God must change that will. That is what original sin and being born again is all about
So, now "God must [sic] change" man's will because man is doing exactly what God preodained man to do?!?
Not only is man doing exactly what God preordained, but now God is changing His mind because God is "unhappy" with man's sin??? Wow!
Your parody of my beliefs is good entertainment first thing in the morning, Irish. Nothing like a little slapstick comedy to start your day with. Thank you. :)
So, we have to invent one? The reason "leap of faith" philosophers were successful is because they offer exactly what the other side offers as "proof"—leap of faith! :)
With "leap of faith" anyone can start or end anywhere he pleases, and claim that he cannot be proved wrong
That is true of all religions in this world, including Christianity. Incarnation, the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, the Bible being the Holy Book must be taken on faith. We have no way of "explaining" or "proving" such mysteries rationally unless our "faith" becomes naked rationalism.
There is no core truth as to explaining man's existence and his relationship to God
The core "truth" is the initial assumption, which is accepted on a leap of faith, as absolute truth.
If the Bible does not also contain the truth about man then how do you even know who you are?
Last time I checked, we know more about who we are through archeology and anthropology. The Bible is "silent" on all those hominoids' remains. Note: don't use the Bible for anthropological explanations... :)
What good is knowing about God if you cannot even know about yourself and where you came from?
We believe we know where we came from, FK. It's a leap of faith, even when the world tells us otherwise.
No, "inspiration" for these purposes connotes infallibility
Really? By whose definition?
Neither I, nor any of my Reformed brethren claim infallibility in our teachings
That's good! But how can you then claim that the "indwelling spirit" (implying the Holy Spirit) leads you? Why would He lead you fallibly?
The Apostles and the other Biblical writers, however, were infallible in their WRITINGS
Again, we must believe that on leap of faith and nothing more. But we also know that what we read of their writings are copies of copies of copies, and not the originals, and that the various scribes were not "inspired" in the same way (infallibly) as the Apostles, so we must presume that those copies are not exactly what was written in the originals, or else we are making another leap of faith and assuming that all the copies of the copies are absolutely infallibly copied (which we know for a fact they are not).
Besides, it isn't really that we interpret, but that interpretation is given to us
Well, then, it must be given to us in thousands of variants, given (no pun intended) how we all have somewhat individualized and often contradictory beliefs. Gravity is a given, FK, and we all understand it in the same way. No one believes that jumping off of a tall building will make you go up! :) That's what I call unity of belief!
We fallible humans apprehend that interpretation in different ways, hence differences among good Christians
Aaah, that explains it I suppose... :) Let me rephrase: we fallible humans apprehend things fallibly (imperfectly), so we all know a little bit of the truth, but not the whole truth. The devil is in relativism (ecumenism), FK. Literally.
But, we somehow infallibly "know" that the Bible is infallible because it was written by fallible men who were inspired and made infallible, but we cannot comprehend their writings infallibly, so we just worship God as we see fit, fallibly. We are all one big fallible "church." Of course, our faith in Jesus is infallible and positively true, and so is our belief in Incarnation...yet we fallibly disagree in our infallible beliefs...
[How do you know Apostles were infallible] Matt 10:18-20... for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Many a poster on these forums sad exactly the same thing. They all must think that it is not them but the Spirit speaking through them as well.
Now, in my view this is also written to all Christians, but in the narrow view this shows Godly inspiration of a special type directly to the Apostles
Then all "true" Christians will be speaking infallibly...leap of faith again. I hope you realize that. Will the "true" Christians please stand up?
You seem to say there was chaos beforehand, and I say that it was virtually settled by that time
The canon was pretty much agreed upon by the latter half of the 4th century. In fact, it was the canon proposed by St. Athanasius that everyone agreed upon at the Council of Carthage some 30 years later. But it was "chaos" pretty much between the end of the first century and the middle of the fourth century, with a flood of Gnostic "gospels" and other heretical writings.
Revelation was the toughest book for the Church to accept. It was actually accepted in the East first, then rejected. Most deuterocanonicals (2, 3 John, 1 Peter) were rejected at first. Others (Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, and many others) were at first accepted, then gradually dropped from being read at divine liturgies. The "canons" varied from church to church.
I do not deny that the Holy Spirit leads the members of the Apostolic Church. Of course He does. But equally obvious is that this nevertheless results in disagreements among good Christians, even WITHIN the Apostolic Church
Would the Holy Spirit, the Lord, lead people into disagreements? Would He deceive them? If you go by the OT, God does deceive some people but the New Testament calls Him the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter. I would say that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches would say that God doe snot deceive. The devil does. He is the crafty one and a master of deceiver, and father of all lies, not (our Christian) God. That is the Christian understanding, fallible in your eyes as it may be.
Since I do not recognize the authority of your hierarchy, and since the Apostolic hierarchy is not even in communion with itself, I see no superiority in it to the Spirit's leading of the individual Christian
Superiority is not an issue here. God appointed some to be apostles, others teachers, etc. He appointed women to have children. There is nothing unfair or fair about it; there is nothing superior or inferior about it, as man needs a woman and woman a man to have children. From the beginning the churches had bishops and deacons and laity. Without the bishops there is no church; without the laity there is no church. The clergy lead the congregation in prayer. The are sinners like we are. A bus driver is no better than the people he is driving. There is nothing to recognize or not recognize. It's biblically established that some will be apostles, others teachers...interpreters, etc.
There might be some, but the Holy Spirit also gives discernment corporately. In Orthodoxy, I think I remember that if a Bishop or council made a ruling it would be nullified if the laity refused to follow it
The Orthodox laity is expected to know what the Church teaches. If a priest of a bishop begin to deviate from the teaching that had remained unchanged for centuries, the clergy have not only the right but an obligation to confront the clergy, and to even demand their replacement. Thus, for instance, when the Ecumenical Patriarch nominated an archbishop for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America, the people disapproved of this individual and the EP withdrew his nomination.
The Church does not exist without teachers and without the congregation, just as a woman by herself cannot have a child, but must receive from a man the other half of our chromosomal material, the Church needs two (clergy and laity) to be one viable organism.
"Yet, in both cases, there lacks any serious proof that anything wirtten in the Bible has any factual merit".
There lacks any serious proof that your history of the Church in the first millenium has any factual merit.
I merely stand on the shoulders of giants, my friend.
Pelagianism designates a heresy of the fifth century, which denied original sin as well as Christian grace.
That is the error of Pelagius.
Would you be able to define his heresy?
:::God is not responsible for every action, but He is in control of every result. God preordains everything, but He doesn’t carry out the actions. We carry out our own actions, as well as satan does. When something unpleasant is needed, God simply forgoes His opportunity to prevent the occurrence of the thing. If God has no duty to prevent, then I am correct. If God DOES have a duty, then you are right.:::
I’m not sure that this will stand up in either temporal court or His Court. How can you guarantee something without being responsible for it?
:::How can your position be that man is subservient when most people choose to thwart God’s will? It is Reformers who believe in true subservience, since the Master always gets His way.:::
Thwart His will? Most people? I don’t think.
Reformers do not believe in subservience; they believe in slavery. And the majority of people go to hell under Reformed doctrine. Count up the selected elected. Not a majority, as far as I can see.
Actually, unlike te Scriptures, there is plenty to corroborate regarding the history of the Church that is historically factual.
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.