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.
LOL!!! I have found that to be true as well, wmfights!
The difficulty is "objectivity" seems to be hard to come by these days; it seems many people either have something to sell, or an ax to grind....
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the "objective" creation actually, in truth, was made by God -- and the dissenters know this very well, deep down. But they deeply resent having to acknowledge this, for "subjective" reasons. If you know what I mean....
To me, this is a flight from reality, from the very truth of being, in order to construct a "second reality," which cannot stand, because it is determined to exclude an indispensible sector of reality from its model. One cannot edit the world down into something more to one's liking without losing truth.
God will not be mocked. But humans will be deluded.
FWIW, in the discussion about Angels procreating I happened to read this:
1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
I don't believe these "sons of God" were fallen angels. It is more likely that this is the intermarriage between believers and non-believers and the offspring were non-believers.
LOLOL xzins!!! You so funny!
In the void, in the nothing, there is no space and there is no time. There is no causation. There is no principle of activity or animation. There is simply ... nothing. And nothing cannot bootstrap itself into something....
The "eternal universe" model is senseless; for in rejecting the necessity of a beginning, it obviates, or refuses to recognize, that nothing cannot bootstrap itself into something. And yet the universe is there.... Its existence is inexplicable according this model.
The sheer existence of the universe is, to me, the most indisputable evidence that God created it, ex nihilo. It required an "uncaused cause" to get the ball rolling, so to speak.
The reason for that is there cannot be an infinite regression of causes back to a nothing. Nothing causes nothing, and therefore cannot serve as the cause of anything.
I understand now:
Rev.21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
The same light as Gen. 1:3-4 ???
And God said, "Let there be light:" and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness
.......Ping
What is it that disturbs you about an unbounded universe, Editor-Surveyor? Can you state your objection? I'm not being hostile here, or adversarial. I only wish to understand your point of view.
I do not myself see how an unbounded universe "rules out" God's word in any way. What am I missing?
I knew the nephalim would get drawn into this. :-)
I believe these "sons of God" are the believers who began to marry non-believers and their offspring were non-believers. the "giants" in the earth can also be translated "fallen ones". IOW, those that are not believers.
WmFights, thank you and a few others who may not agree with this but you have not closed your mind to it. You are one of the few that has actually asked questions to debate the ideas.
You're welcome. Please do the same. I am convinced that this understanding of different ages and angels procreating with humans is wrong. The reference to the nephalim is the only instance where a possible interpretation of angels procreating with humans exists. Also, your understanding of prior ages is dependent upon the translation of key words. Do you believe that when the vowels were added to the Masoretic text mistakes were made?
Boy oh boy isn't that the truth!
One cannot edit the world down into something more to one's liking without losing truth.
You can if you think of yourself as a coequal, or superior to, GOD. Our post modernist age allows us to elevate our "feelings" above TRUTH, because there is no absolute TRUTH it's all relative to us on a personal level.
I’m a little puzzled.
Does this mean that baptism is nice but not necessary, and sins will be paid for not in the next world but only in this? Would that not mean that Paris Hilton is as pure as the driven snow?
Umm, I didn’t say that.
But yes, three times it is.
In my view, some Christians have a weak or tender or provisional faith which demands some kind of physical evidence - very much like "doubting Thomas" saying he would not believe unless he could thrust his hand in Christ's side.
It is a sad situation when our brothers and sisters in Christ have more faith in the physical world than in God.
But doubting Thomas was an apostle, too. Christ chose him and helped him to believe. And we have the "mind of Christ" (I Cor 2.)
Therefore I assert we must be loving and patient and help one so situated to look and see and lift up his eyes to Christ.
To God be the glory!
The very same 'water' that God said is there.
Remember, this universe is temporary; it is set to terminate "with fervent heat" at the end of Christs millenial reign.
Aye, there's the rub! The people who deny absolute truth leave themselves no solid ground to stand on. They have lost their reason; for absent truth, reason has nothing to do. "Feelings" cannot supply any valid basis by which to order life, personal or social. They will suffer for their own irrationality, in this world or the next. Though they may wield political power and/or influence, this cannot help them in the end. In their arrogance, they do not see this.
May God have mercy on their souls (which many deny even having, poor fools).
Thank you for not accusing me of that. I'm sorry I thought you did. You may be correct in that they use it but it is simply the KJV Bible. Evil people will use anything and twist it to their benefit, as did Satan in the Garden, when he used God's Word.
Just look where these doctrines lead. Then, if you want to be a non-denominational Christian, get yourself attached to a more traditional non-Denominational Church. One that doesn't go off on these insane twisted doctrines that lead to no good
The reason I don't believe it is an "insane, twisted doctrine" is because Christ Himself taught it. In post 2226 I explained where He did that and I'll repeat it here: _________________
Understanding this issue is very important. Of the seven churches in Revelation what did the only two churches Christ approve of do for that approval?
Rev.1:18 I Am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
2:9. (Smyrna) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.
11.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; 'These things saith He That is Holy, He That is True, He That hath the key of David, He That openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth;
9.Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
To know who the tares (Kenites - sons of Cain) are, is to hold the Key of David in your hand and once you know, understand. That cannot be taken from you. Jesus warns us in those verses that He holds the keys to hell and death so listen to what He is saying. Both of those churches teach who the Kenites (sons of Cain) are and Jesus approved of only those two churches. How many churches today teach that? _______________
It is not a divers and strange doctrine P-Marlowe. Perhaps it hasn't been taught by churches because it wasn't time. Is God opening eyes and ears now because the time is nearing???
Yes, they are facts. There are many species of facts. These are scientific facts. That we are talking about them makes them objective. Some confuse fact with true, which is a confusion of categorical judgement.
The line from Bobby McGee applies, although it's intended otherwise.
It boils down, doesn't it BB, to the something/nothing argument.
We get to have something be in the eternal past or we get to have nothing be in the eternal past.
If nothing, then it gives rise to itself.
If something, then we've got to ask what kind of something could give rise to all else.
(So far as the Ladies nodding in the affirmative -- they might even have nodded a bit too quickly. :>)
God's word says that this universe is bounded. He said that it is expanded between the waters above and below. Genesis describes a creation that is Earth-centered, which is what the current unworkable unbounded universe model is intended to reject. An Earth-centered universe is full of purpose, and full of the glory of it's creator, and subject to his laws; that is what the unbounded folly is imagined to refute.
The thing that I find most amusing is that even in their silly and impossible unbounded universe, when General Relativity is applied, it becomes obvious that the appearance of great age is an illusion caused by the expansion that they all recognize. In other words, they are being most unscientific in relying on that illusion, simply because allowing for passage of billions of years makes an accidental origin of life seem less impossible for those desiring it.
Our job is to observe nature and name things. The better we see nature the more things we see that need naming. If we want to name things meaningfully, we need to classify things, and cosmology is so far the best science we have to classify things we see when we look out into space.
Baptism is a burial(of the old man) not a birth..
Sometimes it takes a number of times to finally put the old boy down..
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.