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.
Fine, but Paul's message was to believe NONE of them if they contradicted scripture, including himself. We obviously disagree on whether the Apostolic hierarchy has spent more time safeguarding or more time creating from thin air.
All bishops are of the same rank of dignity, FK. Archbishops, metropolitans, etc. are administrative, not spiritual ranks ...
And the Apostolic Church is obviously greatly split on that issue.
St. Paul was preaching Christ and he was telling Bereans 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...
Yes, the OT. Here is what it says:
Acts 17:11 : Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
The check was for consistency. If any Apostle or successor taught in contradiction to the OT (and now the NT also), then one could be sure that the teaching was false.
No, it's a way of saying that [He] can save whomever He wants. You find a problem with that?
I don't, but that isn't the Apostolic view. To you, God saves NO ONE, He only makes it possible for man to decide to accept the offer and then perform to satisfactory standards, functionally saving himself. So, I suppose the result for you would be that believers save themselves, but among non-believers, God still plucks out a few and does all the work for them. It's an odd result, but I see no way around it.
When did Paul defer to Peter because Peter outranked him?
We are, however, instructed to go and evangelize the heathens; my ministry obviously extends to the religious forums of FR.
And we're lucky to have you, Mark. :)
Yes, exactly. That's the only conclusion we can come to.
While Mary as a pious woman was very honorable, so were many others. God explained how it was going to be to many people, and many of them said "Yes, Sir" as Mary did. Mary NEVER held the fate of Christianity in her hands. Such an idea not only insults God, but also the good woman that Mary was.
The Reformed know in whom we believe, and He is not the AUTHOR of sin. You have argued before that sin isn't even a "thing" to be created by anyone, and I have never argued with this. So, I don't know why you would say that sin is part of the creation. Sin is authored by those God created. God uses some of those authored sins as tools to promulgate His plan. I use tools all the time that I didn't make. It seems like the idea of a God who is in control is so repugnant to you all that you simply declare such a God to be evil. I guess if that's what you guys need to do. ...... :)
God is the FIRST cause of everything, but not always the last. Sin comes from those God already created, not from God Himself.
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.
Yes, exactly.
God gave man freedom to choose. When one chooses, one can choose God or sin.
Everyone is free to sin at birth. God then gives some the freedom to choose Him, and they always do.
If everything we do is God's will, then we have no will of our own and we are back to robots.
Nah, we'd be back to man having the power to thwart the will of God. Man has a will, it is just under God's authority.
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.
The outcome concerning their destiny doesn't change, but the acts of men certainly DO affect the unfolding of history on earth. It is all part of God's plan so it does have meaning.
Reformed theology makes the sacrifice on the Cross a "ritual" like some theatrical scene.
You make it sound like God wasn't sure whether to go through with it until the last minute. No, the cross was ordained and had to be carried out within time, so it was.
That's why prayers are simply "obedience" show, since they change nothing in this mindset.
Prayers certainly change things in OUR mindsets, but not in God's. The all powerful Reformed God is perfect, so He doesn't need to change His mind.
Your question would make sense if God were subject to time. God is transcendental. He doesn't wait for us to make our decisions; He sees our entire life in one instant. He knew Mary's choice, which was as free as Adam's and Eve's. As our Protestant friends would say: God was not surprized. But He did not make the chocie for her either, lest it be His choice and not hers.
If he contradicted the Old Testament, sure, but how could they check the "scriptures" about Christ (which is what St. Paul was preaching) and varify them against the OT? He must have been referring his statements vis-a-vis the OT (and Judaism), not the Gsopels.
And the Apostolic Church is obviously greatly split on that issue
The Apostolic Church is in disagreement on the extent of administfrative jurisdiction, not on spiritual primacy of any bishop. Our dilaogue with the Latins is over papal jurisdiction, not whether he is a valid bishop or whether he is first in honor among other bishops.
We are also in disagreement with the Latins on the issue of papal ex-cathedra infallibility, but that is another story, and not a simple topic to discuss either (it may make an excellent second thread though).
The check was for consistency. If any Apostle or successor taught in contradiction to the OT (and now the NT also), then one could be sure that the teaching was false
When St. Paul wrote his epistles, the NT was not written yet. So they couldn't check anything against the NT, save for whatever St. Paul's Epistles they may have had and, to the best of my knowledge, he did not call his own work "scripture."
I don't, but that isn't the Apostolic view. To you, God saves NO ONE, He only makes it possible for man to decide to accept the offer and then perform to satisfactory standards, functionally saving himself
Baloney, FK! You simply either refuse to acknowledge what the Apostolic Church teaches (with which you are quite familair by now) because your whole faith is based on its denial, or you simply don't have the eyes and the ears, to use the biblical argument.
The Bible tells us that there were believeing Samaritans and pagans, and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and their prayers were answered because they believed. IOW, there are people who have the faith who are not in the Church, and who recognize the Lord the way a Samaritan woman recognized Him.
Those who recognize God are saved because they come to Him; they follow Him and He does not lead them astray. The Church teaches that God does not force people. We must come to Him on our own, in response to His call (and He calls on all people). If we don't, we are lost.
What is the "fate" of Christianity according to the reformed?
But in the Reformed theology even the second, third, nth cause is by God's will. So, whatever happens is accoridng to His will which we cannot resist. That makes our decisions His decisions, and therefore when we sin we sin because God willed it. That makes God the author of our sin. If we have no free will (the core belief of the Reformed theology) then it is someone else's—God's!
Well said Dear Brother!
No. There are those who fall away.
Nah, we'd be back to man having the power to thwart the will of God. Man has a will, it is just under God's authority.
God's will is that we are free to choose. God gave us wide freedom, but not limitless freedom. If we are free we are not thwarting God's will, but fulfilling it.
Since the Resurrection, mankind is free to accept or reject God's offer of slavation.
You make it sound like God wasn't sure whether to go through with it until the last minute
Well, if God predestined everyone to either heaven or hell before the foundation of the world, the Crucifixion did not save the world, since the "elect" were already saved.
Prayers certainly change things in OUR mindsets, but not in God's
So, why did Jesus pray?
Stfassisi: What is the "fate" of Christianity according to the reformed?
Indeed. All of God's elect (patriarchs and prophets) had something to do with our faith, beginning with Noah. Without the Blessed Theotokos, there would be no Incarnation. That much is clear. Unless one is willing to suggest that God forced her to have a child. Maybe there are sects and cults that believe that. But that's not the Christian God we know, FK.
Flame-bait alert!
I haven’t takent he time to read the whole thread, but here’s the deal: I in my college and now my married years, and my favorite aunt now in her widowed years only recently, have gone from Catholic to Protestant practicing faiths.
I felt then and feel now, and my favorite aunt now agrees, that what we practice now is so much closer to knowing the actual Gospel and Word. In practical terms, the worship services themselves are so much more enlightening and speak so much more personally and on practical levels than the recitation of the Catholic Mass we onced experienced.
Thank you for your testimony.
Read 2 Kings 22-23.
That "actual" Gospel does NOT exist in its totality! We have fragments. Your "actual" Gospel comes from you having to rely on the Eastern and Western Catholic Church Fathers witness that tell you that Scripture is the Word of God.
Your Aunt and you has been deceived from believing that the Eucharist is truly the body,blood ,soul and divinity of our Lord.
Great. But, what I have sought and found is spiritual guidance that leads me to live in a way that those who do not know God might know Him because they know me.
It takes every-day, practical, spiritual inspiration about how to handle the office jerk rather than what I learned from Catholic Mass to teach me that.
Catholic Mass (liturgy) is all about praising God, not handling office jerks. Hopefully, being Catholic or Orthodox would teach you how to practice your faith in daily settings, by having the mind of Christ, and living your faith.
I have no idea what kind of "services" you attend (those "fell-good" sermons a la Joel Osteen and other clowns who sell how-to-handle-office-jerk pills) but I would imagine that you may have missed the train if you believed a service intended to glorify God was going to give you pointers on how to handle officer herks.
The Church offers spiritual advice to anyone who seeks them, privately, or in bible study groups and in spiritual question and answer sessions, etc. We leave the liturgy to sing praise to God.
Well put.
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.