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.
I wish you would stop trying to psychoanalyze God.
Since I questioned only you and kosta50 regarding your ability to speak for God I can only assume you think of yourself as God. Rest at peace. I think you know as much as I do. (Nothing!)
Love Him and others and use your Free Will to avoid sin instead. What's wrong with that?
Fine.
In the way I think you are using the word "force", it has nothing to do with God forcing anyone to do something. God didn't force Mary any more than He forces the elect to believe. God gave Mary, a sinner, a new heart. He gave her faith, and that faith would cause her to be joyful about the future as it was given to her by the angel.
:::Sure, directly to the Bereans at that time he meant the OT, but I think the message applies equally to us today for all of scripture. They could check the scriptures about Christ against all the OT prophecy about Him. So, if one came teaching that Jesus was born in Jerusalem, of Mary and Joseph, then one should dismiss that person.:::
The trouble is in the interpretation, isn’t it? 30,000?
Communion is the operative word, of course. Scriptural, not just or only temporal jurisdiction.
:::I certainly hope you haven’t jeapordized your salvation by listening to, or worse yet, attending any of those services. Of course I do wonder how you know so much about those “clowns”.:::
In my misspent youth, I attended many and varied circuses. I hope and pray that my salvation hasn’t been jeapardized.
:::But in the Reformed theology even the second, third, nth cause is by God’s will. So, whatever happens is according to His will which we cannot resist.
Yes, according to His will, but not by His responsibility.:::
Did you learn law from OJ’s Dream Team? :)
We don’t “know” the commander’s handwriting. It is a copy of a copy of a copy, all handwritten by men.
Your analogy doesn’t apply here.
Yes, of course. If God can ordain Judas' betrayal and all the other events that led up to the crucifixion, then He can ordain any of my sins. Or, do you think that everything leading up to the crucifixion was by accident?
Now, if we try to say that God just looked through His crystal ball of foreknowledge to "wait" until conditions were ripe on the ground to initiate the Incarnation, then He would still be looking at random events. God just got lucky that at any point in time they happened to come together for His purposes. Why would we venerate Mary for her foreseen free choice, but not Judas and company, whose free choices were just as important to our salvation?
I know for a fact that God did not preordain any of my sins.
Really, how? :) The Bible is clear that God withdraws from people, and that leads to sin. For example:
Rom 1:25-26 : 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts . Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
So, we know it happens. For a less dramatic example, imagine that I believe I have been wronged by my brother and have bad feelings toward him. Now imagine that we have a conversation, and I sin by taking a cheap shot against him. He responds and we get into an argument. However, during the argument I find out that I misunderstood a key fact that led to my hurt feelings. I then apologize. My brother and I then reconcile. Does God deserve any thanks for this? Could He have ordained my cheap shot that led to the reconciliation? I would say that no luck was involved and give full glory and thanks to God.
The analogy does apply. It’s not a copy of a copy of a copy.
The churches in question had had chain of custody.
In the same way as the commander delivered to the runner who delivered to the other runner (3 generations) we have Paul delivered to Corinthian church who kept it in chain of custody. They could validate the Corinthian letter because they had a known and controlled chain of custody.
They did not write it. It would have no value if they had written it.
It was valuable because they could (and did) validate that Paul had written it. And that mean that, you, my brother, are subject to the words of the Apostle Paul as contained in the inspired scripture of the letters to Corinth.
I wish you would recognize that, but the legitimacy of the point does not rest on your recognizing it.
Sure.
When Paul came to see Peter for instruction.
Succint enough? :)
Show me the originals as written.
You aren’t listening.
You have my full attention.
Chain of custody
Fragments and scraps of written material were copied and lost over the centuries. There was no central Catholic bank vault. The original material was in various folks’ hands as they travelled through their bishopric teaching and instructing.
We do not apparently have any of the originals. Chain of custody or not.
Chain of custody in the verifying churches was established to the satisfaction of early Christians.
Are you telling me that you think Paul did not write the Corinthian letters?
Which ones?
The first and third, which were lost, or the second and fourth (labelled 1 Cor and 2 Cor) which were not?
The Church is convinced that Paul wrote them; therefore I accept their teaching.
I am simply asking who is competent to say what is scripture and what isn't, x.
That is an interesting scenario, x, but being a retired Naval officer (I have also served three years in the US Army) I know this is not how things work.
But I appreciate your attempt to explain your point of view.
For one my 1SG would have known and participated in Bn meetings and knonw the Bn Cdr's handwriting and style. The Bn Cdr would have not just scribbled something. There would be verifiable information on the orders. Chances are the Cdr would have sent a replacement radio with the runner. Or he could have dropped one from a chopper.
When it comes to "verifying" the Bible it is determining which version of the extant bibles are more likely to be closer to the original. Textual criticism is the only method of accomplishing that, but that in itself does not establish what is scripture and what isn't.
All that matters are what we have. We do have them. You do accept them as Pauline.
Therefore, you are to be under the authority of the Apostle. His words control. Not you. (or me. :>)
1SGs were not regularly in our staff meetings — seldom, as a matter of fact — and they would not know the handwriting of the Bn Cdr because most everything they get is cyber.
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.