Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

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.

“This makes no sense at all to me.”

Ah, perhaps I didn’t put it well. Mohammedans believe that the koran is the perfect actual unadulterated word of God dictated by an angel to Mad Mo whilst in some sort of trance. Its not Mo’s words written under inspiration. To say that the bible is the perfect word of God is to have the same attitude towards the bible that Mohammedans have towards the koran, which is to say that the authors were some sort of automotons, a proto speak and write program. The Church has soundly rejected the notion that there is no error in the bible or that each and every part of it is literally true and historically accurate (ie, bats aren’t birds)or that it was written by humans under some sort of mind control from God. The scriptures are worthy of veneration, FK, but they are not objects of worship.

“With a flawed Bible, of course it becomes meaningless as an authority since it is no longer God’s word.”

Its various men’s expression of God’s word as the Spirit lead them to record it. We can be assured of its efficacy and authority because The Church determined that 1600 yeas ago, or so.

“The authority is transferred out of the scriptures, and installed into the men who claim the personal authority to usurp that power.”

No, the authority is installed in The Church, the fullness of which, as we know, is found in the liturgical community of the bishop, in locus Christi, surrounded by his clergy and monastics and the People of God centered on the Eucharist which is Christ and together is the Body of Christ. Pretty safe place for that authority to my way of thinking, FK.

“...I believe that (aside from Christ) any man or group of men is subject to error. With no standard, all we have is the say so of men we choose to follow.”

If we Orthodox followed a man or a group of men rather than what The Church as defined above teaches, for example, in the consensus patrum, we would indeed have a problem. But we don’t and neither Kosta nor I have said we do. If we did, it was error.

“That is a completely different earthly basis of faith from anything I am familiar with.”

It is for us too.

FK: To believe that one would have to accept that there is no Divine organization behind the 66 books of the Bible, and that man just wrote them out randomly.

Non sequitur. I have already shown you that at least one "prophesy" [Acts 1:20] was (1) stitched together from two unrelated verses and (2) that it was written after the fact given that we know when it was written. You choose to ignore these facts; I don't.

Well, the difference is that you aren't declaring yourself right over an uninspired Church Father and you aren't declaring yourself right over uninspired Luther. No, instead you are declaring yourself right over inspired Peter (or inspired Luke)! :) There is no matter of interpretation here. You are putting yourself above an inspired author. That says a lot. :)

[The books of the Bible] interact because they build on and borrow form each other. It's not a miracle.

That says a lot too. :) I think I understand now.

You mean like the ones we all are supposed to have according to +Mark? [Mark 16:17-18] Clearly even +Peter doesn't seem to think so. He is speaking of the role of being an overseer of the flock (laity) led by an elder (presbyter), not the "powers."

So, here we have two Apostles contradicting each other. Clearly, we do not have the powers +Mark claims all believers shall manifest. Either +Mark is wrong or there are practically no true believers!

There is no contradiction. Giving due consideration to what you note below, one answer is that we need only compare Mark to what we see with our own eyes. If we start with the premise that Mark was inspired, and we see that not all believers have those powers today, then we KNOW that isn't what he meant. He meant the Apostles and any other early Christians to which those powers were given. But if we start with the premise that the Bible is just a collection of books written by fallible men, then I'm sure that one can find all sorts of contradictions.

The section of +Mark I quote above is part of that +Mark 16:9-20 curious addition to the older manuscripts which don't have it. How do you know what was added or altered? It's simple: you don't, because neither you nor anyone else can!

My version makes a clear note of those verses, just as you say. I don't know what every single word of the original was, I only know that it was perfect. That which is of God always is.

Look at +Mark's version of the "Great Commission." ..... Compare that to +Matthew's "eyewitness" account ..... The difference is striking considering that both of the authors have been present in a relatively small confined space and have heard such different account!

First we note that the Mark version is part of that passage we just talked about. But even so, the accounts are a little different, but I don't see any great conflict. What are you referring to?

And what about the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles. One account (+John 20:22 ) says that Jesus told the Apostles "Receive the Holy Spirit" soon after the Resurrection, when Christ appeared before the Apostles through a closed door. Another (+Acts 1:4-8) says that they are to stay in Jerusalem, where they will receive the HS: ...

In John, Jesus breathed on them. This was a sign or pledge that they would later receive the Spirit literally (or fully), as is described in Acts. Breath is compared to the Spirit elsewhere in places like John 3:8.

I'm going to get in trouble for this, but here goes. [Hail Mary, full of Grace! I mean you no insult Blessed Mother.]

Conception is implantation of an embryo, in mammals. There is a need to look for Whom is the Father/Mother of the conceptus, Jesus ... we always assume Mary to be the biological Mother, but that is not necessarily the case though she is doubtless the Blessed Virgin into Whom God placed Jesus and through Whom we are most blessed because she gave life support to Him in the body.

If we take the Bible to be truthful in stating 'the life is in the blood', as a descendant of Adam, Mary's blood would not naturally be spotless yet the Blood of Jesus was just that! Just as Jesus came out of the stone tomb without need of rolling away the stone, and entered rooms without need of an opening door or window, and left His burial shroud without unwrapping it, He could just as easily have entered Mary's womb to achieve conception without the 'normal' passages, and been born just as easily without exiting using the 'normal passages'.

Not in trouble with me. :)

I have no argument with the belief in the virgin birth or perpetual virginity for that matter. The basis of my faith in God is not wrapped up in that concept.

On the other hand the RCC would fall apart if either dogma - Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Perpetual Virginity, or Bodily Assumption was proved to be in error.

I believe Mary led a normal married life, had other children who were half-siblings of Jesus but am not so locked up in the concept that my faith would fail if proven otherwise.

Then why does Simon Peter say,”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”? Clearly he understood what he was saying. Clearly he knew who he was talking about

Yes he did, but in a Judaic mindset. What he said, literally, is "You are the anointed one, favored of God." (the savior of Israel)

He was repeating what is in Hosea 1:10 "...In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Also, God calls all of Israel His son in Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

The term meshiyah, or its anglicized form—messiah (christos in Greek), which means the anointed one, in Judaism, was to be a mortal man, of Davidic lineage, who would become the King of Israel and conquer all Israel's enemies and make the power of God (His judgment) known to the Gentiles so they would know on whose side is God (that's where the name Immanuel, "God is with us," comes from–in Isa 8:10).

Those who are favored of God, whether they are angels or mortals, in Judaic tradition, bear the title "Sons of God" (ben elohyim).

This term does not mean the literal son of God. See the Beatitudes "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." [Mat 5:9]

BTW, It was St. Paul who invented the "proper name" Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus. Christ (Messiah) is a title not a proper name.

Kosta: They have until their last breath to repent, but if they think they are already "saved" no matter what, what's the chance they will truly repent?

FK: That would mean you think of a faithful Protestant who holds to exactly the same core Christian beliefs that you do is just as damned as an apostate Catholic. Wouldn't that mean that you place special emphasis on the sacraments as being salvational in and of themselves?

Sacraments are spiritual medicine that help us heal. Unless we change our ways (repent), we will not get well, no matter how much medicine we get. Those who become Christ-like are saved. That this is so, and that faith alone is not enough (+Paul's teaching notwithstanding) is evidenced in the Beatitudes; in fact the Beatitudes (in the true Judaic tradition) do not even mention faith! Judaism, of course, says that man can make himself acceptable to God by doing things in the spirit expressed in the Beatitudes. That is true of the observant and non-observant Jews. The Beatitudes are a perfect example of the New Testament-estabished works-based salvation. This is later modified as "works of faith," but work nonetheless.

Regardless, the bottom line is: unrepentant Catholics or Protestants are all in the same basket.

Kosta: Why? Isn't it the Calvinist God's decision if they remain apostate?

FK: That might very well be God's plan, but I can't know that

What does your knowledge have to do with anyone's salvation or perdition?

Therefore, I obey and part of loving my neighbor would be wanting him to be saved

I want them to be saved too, but you don't know if they are saved or not. You can't know that either. It should be enough for you to just pray for God to have mercy on all, and leave it all up to God.

:::If you see a person bowing to an icon in your church, and you do nothing about it, you are sinning as much as they are.:::

Really. You’ve never bowed to anyone. Ever. Not a monarch, or a leader of a country or even an audience. Fancy that. You may want to brush up on etiquette and exactly what the significance of a bow (or curtsey) is.

:::Angels are perfect, otherwise they could not be in service to God, could not be in his presence.:::

If angels are perfect then they cannot sin. Lucifer and 1/3 of all the angels sinned. Are you saying that God made 2/3 of the angels perfect and 1/3 evil?

:::Are you talking about my church? Are you? Whimsical group? You are talking about people who worship the Lord almighty, the King of kings and Lord of Lords, the same God whom you cliam your church worships.:::

I do not doubt your sincerity. I do doubt your methodology of your theological formation. Actually, I go past that and state that the methodology is that of fallible men generating personal theologies, and not heeding the institution that Christ left to us to shepherd us and guide us.

:::Why can’t you grant that we worship the same God? What are you afraid of?:::

I am not afraid; I attempt to act as best I can with the grace of God in faith, hope and love. I do not know if you worship the same God because I don’t know what your understanding of God is. We have had discourse with the LDS folks because we believe that they have a different understanding of God than mainstream Christianity. The more that I delve into Reformed theology, the more I am convinced that the Reformed God is significantly different than the God that I was taught about and that I can understand from Scripture.

The Christian God that I understand is a God of love and inclusion; he goes to get the lost one out of 99 and sorrows when they do not repent of their sins; the Reformed God that I am trying to understand is a God of exclusion and one that throws the bulk of humanity into the everlasting fires of hell for his own amusement.

Kosta: I have already shown you that at least one "prophesy" [Acts 1:20] was (1) stitched together from two unrelated verses and (2) that it was written after the fact given that we know when it was written. You choose to ignore these facts; I don't.

FK: you are declaring yourself right over inspired Peter (or inspired Luke)! There is no matter of interpretation here. You are putting yourself above an inspired author. That says a lot. [emphasis are mine]

Indignation will not prove that this "prophesy" was not stitched together form two unrelated verses of two different Psalms, and that it was not written after the fact.

However, I am somewhat disturbed by your statement that this is "no matter of interpretation." Is this another way of saying "You will read it and you will believe it?"

Kosta: [The books of the Bible] interact because they build on and borrow form each other. It's not a miracle.

FK: That says a lot too. :) I think I understand now.

You are claiming a "miracle" without any proof. There is greater evidence of borrowing (as we have seen from the last "prophesy" above) then demonstrating a miracle at work.

Kosta: So, here we have two Apostles contradicting each other. Clearly, we do not have the powers +Mark claims all believers shall manifest. Either +Mark is wrong or there are practically no true believers!

FK: There is no contradiction.[!!!!] Giving due consideration to what you note below, one answer is that we need only compare Mark to what we see with our own eyes

Yes, indeed. I don't see anyone doing what Mark 16:17-18 quotes Christ:

17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

What happened to these signs that WILL accompany those who believe? Either +Mark is wrong or there are not too many true believers around FK! this is not just a statement, +Mark is quoting Christ making a promise! A promise! A guarantee ("will accompany those who believe").

My version makes a clear note of those verses, just as you say. I don't know what every single word of the original was, I only know that it was perfect.

Fact is: we don't know what the original contained. Yet we make theological and other conclusions based on uncertain copies of copies.

First we note that the Mark version is part of that passage we just talked about. But even so, the accounts are a little different, but I don't see any great conflict. What are you referring to?

First, how do you know just when was Matthew 28 written? We only have copies of copies of his manuscript. In fact most of the books are anonymous. The Great Commission is so obviously Trinitarian and unlike the rest of the New Testament, just as Comma Johanneum is, that it could have just as easily been added at a later date to reinforce the Trinitarian dogma, as was the case precisely with Comma Johanneum.

Second, how can you believe everything in the Bible if you acknowledge that a substantial part of mark 16 may have been added at a later date, or possibly erased? Which possibility do you believe? Both?

Third, +Mark's "Commission" entails the promise of visible signs (powers) of all believers, discussed above, which is patently unsubstantiated. That is substantially different from +Mat thew's "Commission." Considering that both authors were supposedly present when Jesus pronounced the Commission, their accounts are not even close.

No, FK, in +John the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit right after the Resurrection when Jesus appeared to them, and in Acts they receive Him on the Pentecost (40 days later)!

Please forgive me for butting into this thread at this late date, but I just wanted to state a few things that are often misrepresented:

1)It is not the "qur'an," but the Torah, that is the original Divinely-dictated book. Millenia before "Mad Mo" was born, Orthodox Judaism held that G-d dictated the Torah to Moses letter-for-letter. Moses was not an automoton; he was a stenographer.

I am very sorry that so many of the ancient churches in their arguments with Protestants pull the "qur'an" card, and leave the impression that islam invented the idea of the "perfect, dictated" book (and maybe even imply that their imperfect, fallible bible is a continuation of the original Jewish understanding). But the fact is that the greatness of the Torah is almost incomprehensible to most non-Jews (and many Jews as well). In Judaism the Torah is the "logos" through which G-d created the world. It preceded the Creation by "974 generations" (ie, 1000 - 26) and was written "in letters of black fire upon a scroll of white fire." This is what was dictated to Moses as a series of letters. Jewish Tradition is adamant that the Torah is not an "inspired" book (the Nevi'im [Prophets] and Ketuvim [Writings]) are indeed inspired, but the Torah was literally written by G-d. I am sorry more liturgical chr*stians do not openly admit this radical break in Jewish understanding. Instead they thump the "qur'an" and seem to believe that the "Reform" Jewish position on the Torah is the "Jewish" one. It is not.

2)I would like to point out to kosta50 and kolokotronis (hopefully respectfully) that FK is in all probability puzzled by your invocation of the beatitudes as proof of "salvation by works" in the NT as the pure continuation of the Torah when, if that were the case, there would never have been a need for a NT or a chr*stian religion, since the "works" of Torah (for Jews) and Noachide Laws (for everyone else) would have been quite sufficient. Ie, if it weren't broke, it didn't need fixin'. And ironically James, whose epistle is so often invoked against Luther, was bishop of a Jewish community that observed Torah (which, despite the usefulness of works, is nevertheless regarded as a big no-no).

3)I lament the fact that the idea of an official Oral Interpretive Tradition for the Bible is so often paired with the notion that the Bible is full of mistakes and errors that the two ideas are often conflated by people on both sides of the question. Sorry, FK, but there is such a tradition--it's just that the churches don't have it! The Jewish Oral Tradition, however, does not "explain away" or deny Biblical events or imply that the Torah is imperfect (G-d forbid!)--it fills in the details, tells how the commandments are actually to be observed (since the text doesn't say how to "heave" or "wave" an offering or what totafot are), preserves the vowels and punctuation (which are not part of the Written Torah), and contains the rules and regulations for writing a Torah Scroll, thus assuring the preservation of G-d's Word exactly as originally written.

And, unlike the choice of "sola scriptura" known to all or else an authoritative Oral Tradition known only to an elite, in Judaism the best of both worlds prevails, since it is a commandment for each man to teach Torah (written and oral) to his son. It is also a mitzvah for each individual Jew to write (or have written) a Torah Scroll (the Jewish King has to write two).

I know none of you agree with me and I'm sort of the you-know-what in the punch bowl, but c'mon guys . . . please don't tell (or imply to) such things to the Prots that ain't so!

Dear Brother, Psalm 69:8 and 9 are to be treated separately

Psalm 69;8 The prophecy in verse 8 is fulfilled by the fact that Jesus was rejected by the people of Israel. This is NOT prophecy of blood sons of Mary and Joseph

Psalm 69:9 - zeal for thy house has consumed me - John 2:16-17 - zeal consumed Jesus as He drove out the traders.

This is prophecy of the Church militant

FK Said... “I assume the connection is that if the Church is the bride of Christ, and if Mary is the Church all by herself, then Mary is the bride of Christ. Adam and Eve were equals as humans and were equally responsible for parenting the rest of humanity. On the sin side they both committed sin, but Adam got the technical “credit” for it.”

I said that Christ is the head of the Church.
Mary is the role model of the Church .

Mary is the true Israel whom Old and New Covenanant,Israel and Church are indivisibly one.

Mary is the people of God bearing fruit through God’s precious power.

This http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARYINSC.htm should help you understand

Excerpt..

Daughter of Zion

Perhaps the most striking and obvious Marian image in Scripture is that of the Daughter of Zion. The Daughter of Zion representation of Mary is evident in the parallelism between a great number of texts in the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament Zion is shown as Spouse and Daughter, Virgin and Mother as is Mary in the New. Daughter Zion is the Spouse of Yahweh, Mother of the People of God (Mother Zion), the Virgin Israel. Many of the Old Testament texts describing the Daughter of Zion are amazingly enough applied to Mary, for instance in Luke 1:26-38, John 2:1-12, John 19:25-27. “Here,” writes de la Potterie, “the Old Testament texts of the ‘Daughter of Zion’ are applied to a definite woman. ... This is precisely the reason why, in the Fourth Gospel, both at Cana and at the Cross, Jesus addresses Mary calling her ‘Woman.”, (17). “The definite woman Mary,” he continues, “the Mother of Jesus, is in a certain way the historical realization of this symbolic figure, who is called in the prophets—depending on the context—the ‘Daughter of Zion,’ the ‘Mother-Zion” or the ‘Virgin Israel.’ All of Israel’s expectation of salvation was projected upon this symbolic figure of the “Messianic Daughter of Zion”; this symbolic figure, described by the prophets, is concretized at once in a daughter of Israel, Mary, who thus becomes the personification of the messianic people in eschatological times.” (18). A truly biblical interpretation of Mary will see her as representing both the people of Israel and the future Church.

The comparison of Zephaniah 3:17-17 and Luke 1:28-33 is especially striking:

“Rejoice, Daugher of Zion, the King of Israel, Yahweh, is IN you. Do not be afraid Zion, Yahweh your God is in your womb as a strong Savior.” [Zephaniah 3:14-17] “Rejoice so highly favored. The Lord is WITH you. Do not be afraid, Mary ... Listen, you are to conceive in your womb and bear a son and you must name him “Yahweh Savior.” He will reign [Luke 1:28-33]. (19).

Applying the Daughter of Zion symbolism, de la Potterie notes,

More and more frequently today’s exegetes translate the first word of the angel to Mary, ‘Chaire’, by ‘Rejoice!’ ... It is interesting to verify that in the Septuagint the formula ‘Chaire’ always appears in a context where Zion is invited to the messianic joy in the perspective of the future (Joel 2:21-23; Zp 3:14; Zc 9:9; cf. Lm. 4:21). In the announcement to Mary, the angel utilizes the formula which the prophets employ to invite the eschatological Zion to rejoice in the salvation which God accords her. Thus we read in the prophet Zephaniah 3:14-15: ‘Shout for joy, daughter of Zion!’ ... In the tradition of the Greek Fathers of the Church and in the Byzantine liturgy, the words of the angel have been almost universally understood and explained as an invitation to joy.

It is clear that from the very first words of the angel there is already an echo of the theme of the ‘Daughter of Zion.’ The joy which was announced by the prophets in the Old Testament to the people of Israel—the Woman Zion—diffuses itself and comes to be focused on one particular woman, Mary, who unites in her person, so to speak, the desires and the hopes of all the people of Israel. The Fathers of the Church also understood it in this way.” (20).

Writes Rene Laurentin:

The first word of the angel, chaire, does not correspond to the ordinary Hebrew greeting of peace, shalom, the equivalent of our “Good day!” or “Hello!” It is rather the echo of the greetings of messianic joy addressed by the prophets to the Daughter of Zion in Zech. 9:9, Joel 2:21-27, and especially Zeph. 3:14-17. Once this motif of eschatological joy has been proclaimed, it is the Lord who is to come into the midst of Israel, or translating in its etymological sense the expression bequirbek employed here, “in the womb” of Israel. The message of the angel echoes that of Zephaniah but this time with respect to an immediate realization.

... This first revelation of the Incarnation ... is something accomplished ... simply by the virtual application of the Old Testament scriptures to the new event. Illuminated by Scripture, the event discloses its divine dimensions; actualized by the event, Scripture attains a marvelous and unforeseen fulfillment ...

The joy announced by the angel is messianic joy, the eschatological joy expressed by Zephanaiah. Mary who receives the angel’s message, is the “Daughter of Zion”: she stands for Israel at this decisive hour. The presence of the Lord in Israells midst, this new and mysterious presence announced for the last days, becomes a conception and a childbearing for her. Finally Zephanaiah designates teh one whom she is to bear under the name “Yahweh Savior”. According to the Hebrew, this is the very meaning of the name “Jesus,” designated by the angel, and this name thereby takes on the fullness of its etymological meaning. (21)

John McHugh notes that the passages in Joel and Zechariah are modelled on the Zephaniah passage which is the most ancient of the three. He describes Zephaniah 3:14-17 as “two short poems in which the prophet envisages the day of salvation as already begun, and calls upon the Daughter of Zion to rejoice with all her heart, not to fear, because the Lord is with her, as her king and saviour. This is exactly the message of the angel in Lk 1:28-33 ... The texts of Joel and of Zechariah carry the same message in almost the same phrases.” In his commentary on the Magnificat, McHugh points out that when Mary “speaks of what God has done for her, she speaks of what God has done for Israel: that is, she speaks of herself as the Daughter of Zion.” (22)

Respected Protestant scholars such as A.G. Herbert (”The Virgin Mary as the Daughter of Zion”), A. F. Knight (”The Virgin and the Old Testament”) and the Swedish Lutheran Harald Sahlin (”Der Messias und das Gotteovolk”) have also acknowledged Mary’s identification with the Daughter of Zion.

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.