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.
Then for all we know Mary could have been God's 15th choice to bear His Son? :)
We don’t know; all we know is that she said ‘yes’ and we are where we are because of that acceptance.
Not really, since there never would have been any scripture if God had chosen to give up upon being told "No". IOW, if God would have simply moved on to ask the next young girl, then SOMEONE would have eventually said "yes". Even under your supposition, we are where we are ONLY because God refused to give up. So, Mary would only be worthy of your veneration IF God had decided it would be Mary or there would be no Christianity, AND that Mary was free to decline. Thankfully, God's love for His elect proved much stronger than taking a chance like that.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
It could be that when God said a virgin would bear a child, he meant eventually that would happen, and when it does, then God will bless her, whoever it is. Then, a few hundred years later it happened. So then God sends a messenger to tell her of the good news.:>)
And that would be your privilege.
However, it is not the view of the Church.
Whoever was ordained by the Apostles was ordained into the Church hierarchy. They became the bishops (overseers), administrators of the Catholic and Apostolic Church charged with safeguarding the Orthodox Faith.
Do you think Paul recognized Peter as his superior? No way
All bishops are of the same rank of dignity, FK. Archbishops, metropolitans, etc. are administrative, not spiritual ranks, which became necessary as the size of the Church increased and required an administrative body.
When it was part of God's plan that someone sin, He left that person alone to his own nature and the sin inevitably happened
St. Paul was preaching Christ and he was telling Breans to check the "scripture?" You mean the OT? The OT is not the Gospel of Christ, FK. It is a foreshadowing at best. So, I am nor sure what they were checking...
Is this a way of saying that having faith is nice, but it is not required for salvation as a rule?
No, it's a way of saying that can save whomever He wants. You find a problem with that?
Are you certain what Paul meant?
Paul did defer to Peter when it counted, did he not? What I am saying is that we do not know what God has ordained outside His Church. It is beyond our understanding or instruction and we do not go there.
We are, however, instructed to go and evangelize the heathens; my ministry obviously extends to the religious forums of FR.
I can’t help it if the church is wrong.
No, because God knows our hearts and choices before they are made. In His foreknowledge, He knew Mary would be the person she was and was therefore the only candidate for the role. There is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination.
If God can handle the whole universe, I am sure He can handle our choices without having to make any of them for us.
I don’t think that the omnipotent and ever present God would have been stymied by a young Jewish girl.
Mary would only be worthy of veneration if she had done what she had done. I don’t understand the inability to understand such a concept. We think rather highly of George Washington because of what he has done. What’s the difference?
:::Couldn’t have said it better myself.:::
You’ll just have to practice some more. :)
We don’t normally worship George Washington.
If you wish to go on the premise that the Church set up by Jesus Christ is wrong, then please, by all means do so.
Oh yeah, you get to choose. :)
What’s to stop you?
The operative word is ‘normal’. If you don’t have the Church of Jesus Christ guiding you, then any conclusion or decision that you make is equally of value.
You simply equate "decree" with final cause. You also apply a duty to God which I say does not exist. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
We are saying that the Reformed theology of the creation of sin in the first place is the creation of the Reformed God. Preordained. You cannot wriggle out of it.
I understand that you need man to be in control. Man being in control is very comforting. It means power which man always craves. If God preordains, then that subtracts from man's power, which man craves. It is perfectly according to man's nature as he is born.
Oh, I have no doubts about Jesus’s church, for that is where I worship.
It's the same answer I gave to Mark. You equate the idea of God being in control with God authoring sin. Your theology has man being in control. The nature man is born with demands that man be in control.
FK: "When it was part of God's plan that someone sin, He left that person alone to his own nature and the sin inevitably happened."
So, now we have man's own nature that somehow acts outside of God's will??? That's a new one for a Reformed thinking.
I have no idea how you get that from what I said. Man's born nature is to sin against God. In addition, God's will includes man's sin. I have never said otherwise, so it is not possible for man's nature to act outside God's will. That is the Apostolic position, not the Reformed.
It's God who decides who "sins" and who doesn't.
God saves the elect and the rest are reprobate. But also, God's plan includes the sins of both the saved and reprobate.
But, the real kicker is that mankind has already been either condemned or "saved" before there even existed man. So, sin is really something God wanted man to do "just because."
That's illogical. How does one flow from the other? The sin of the crucifixion was ordained by God. It was not an accident, as the Apostolics apparently believe, and it certainly was NOT "just because".
No judgment comes out of committing sin, because everyone's end has been predestined before they even existed.
Again, illogical. All men are judged, and those whose sins have not been paid for will suffer the consequences.
In either case the concept of sin, like prayer, and everything else we do, becomes meaningless because we are just puppets on the string...
It is only meaningless to you IF you are also God. Otherwise, you have a human experience like the rest of us. That is filled with the unknown, and everything we do is meaningful TO US. You will have to argue with God over whether His creation is meaningless if He already knows everything that is going to happen AND ordains it.
FK: I understand that you need man to be in control. Man being in control is very comforting. It means power which man always craves. If God preordains, then that subtracts from man's power, which man craves. It is perfectly according to man's nature as he is born
You are missing the point, FK. Mark said it very clearly: the creation of sin. The Reformed God is the creator of sin.
I am sorry, FK, that is not what Christians believed from the beginning and this is not what Christians believe today, various groups claiming to be Christians notwithstanding.
Then you do not believe that God is the cause of everything and all.
Your theology has man being in control
And your theology has God authoring sin. My theology is what Christianity believed all along.
Man's born nature is to sin against God. In addition, God's will includes man's sin
Man's nature is fallen. God did not create us that way. Humanity fell from grace because man chose to sin. It is a consequence of abused freedom. When we abuse freedom we lose it. Now we are not free but slaves to sin.
so it is not possible for man's nature to act outside God's will
God gave man freedom to choose. When one chooses, one can choose God or sin. If everything we do is God's will, then we have no will of our own and we are back to robots.
God saves the elect and the rest are reprobate
No, you mean God created some to be saved no matter what and others to perish no matter what. That is not the God that Christ came to reveal.
That's illogical. How does one flow from the other?
If God preordained those who will be saved and those who will perish before they even existed, then their sinning is only a charade, because the "reprobate" have been convicted before they sinned and the "saved" have been pardoned before they were born. Their actual acts of sin are irrelevant and do not affect the outcome.
Again, illogical. All men are judged, and those whose sins have not been paid for will suffer the consequences
Those whose sins have not been paid for were preordained for hell before humanity even happened, before they could sin, before crucifixion. Reformed theology makes the sacrifice on the Cross a "ritual" like some theatrical scene. The sins have been paid for or nor paid for before the foundation of the world, according to that theology. Everything has been decided and judged before the world even existed. That's why prayers are simply "obedience" show, since they change nothing in this mindset.
It is only meaningless to you IF you are also God. Otherwise, you have a human experience like the rest of us. That is filled with the unknown, and everything we do is meaningful TO US...
Oh, yeah the POV theology...right.
LOL!
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.