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.
Exactly..
Thanks betty boop. I understood what he said. Just because a bunch of people talk about something as an “object” of their conversation doesn’t mean there is such an object. So, it is just words unattached to anything real. In other words, shooting the breeze in common language.
Certainly I don't disagree with you on that, kosta50!
Saying you do doesn't mean you do.
Maybe he did maybe he didn't. What does that prove? Did +John the Forerunner know God is Trinity? Maybe he did maybe he didn't. Honestly, I don't care what Jewish priests did; apples and oranges.
The Apostles most of the time had no clue what Jesus was taking about. If they didn't how could they do things correctly. The evidence from Didache (1st century) shows that the earliest Church used triple immersion while the Apostles were still on earth.
Saying you do doesn't mean you do.
If you say so....
I know, that's why I mentioned it. I think of all the Protestant innovations, this one is the most radical and hardest to explain. It is an equivalent, IMHO, to desecration of baptism.
That was Adam's job, not ours. There is nothing in this verse that says we are commissioned to keep naming things. Besides, it had to do with animals an dplants, something we can use and interact with, not space-time fantasies.
To make sure we are on the same wavelength
The Hebrew text says Adam where the NIV/NAB deceivingly inserted "man." So, not just any man, but only Adam. Are you Adam? Is Hawking Adam?
Yes.
Is The Epistle of James in your canon?
So, do we agree then that "objective" conversations about things that 'exist' only in our fancy are shooting the breeze and have no claim to reality or existence of anything but our imagination?
Got a teensy problem here. It also doesn't mean there isn't. Words are signs of concepts. We know we can't know objectively what is real, only if it is objective.
Is The Epistle of James in your canon?
"My" canon? Are you always this precise? The Church has one canon and it's not a private one, as is the case apparently with some groups of gnostics and other heretics running around making their own.
get to the point.
I am glad you realize that too. So, let's not pretend then that speaking of concepts is something real. Let's keep concepts as concepts, fantasy as fantasy, and call cosmology what it is: shooting the breeze.
That is certainly not true. The Roman Church has one, possibly. The Orthodox has one, possibly. The Syriac has one, possibly. The Protestants have who knows. You have already denied the Revelation of St. John, but that is in the Roman and Protestant canon. None of this is to the point, which will go without mention since we all know what it is.
We are all sons of God, believers and non-believers but I think there is a special meaning for this use. For God to send a flood it seems to me that it would be much more than that many, if not all, didn't believe.
These are some of the reasons, in a study done by E.W. Bullinger, that I believe that these "sons of God" are angels.
It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit". Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God can be, and are called "sons of God".
This is why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the OT. We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Gen.6:2 the Sept. renders it "angels".
He also goes on about the Nephilim, or giants, in great detail.
The reference to the nephalim is the only instance where a possible interpretation of angels procreating with humans exists.
I believe that the serpent in the garden is the first instance of that type of procreation. Satan was trying to interfere with the line to Christ. He knew it started with Adam and Eve and continued through the Adamic line (Hebrews).
In Gen.6:2, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.... The word "men" is (Heb. ha-'adham, sing. - the man Adam). This isn't mankind, "men", but Adam. It should have been translated as: That the sons of God saw the daughters of "ADAM" that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Satan wanted that line to Christ wiped out.
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?
Yes, I do. That is why I use the Companion Bible, by E.W. Bullinger. "Readers of the Companion Bible are put in possession of information denied to former generations of translators, commentators, critics, and general Bible students." Bullinger had access to notes by Ginsburg, or he himself took notes (I don't know the proper story) but because of Bullinger or Ginsburg, this Bible has scripture tested against the Massorah.
.....Ping
This is a further problem. It is pointless to speak of anything by that standard. Real is only subjective: what is spoken of is objective and objective is not a synonym for real.
Yes. The object of the game in the use of language is truthful representation of reality.
We need to specify which of the senses of truth is being used here. I assume it is logical truth. We can have no representation of reality, but we do have representations of sensations, which we determine to be objects. We can have no knowledge of reality except subjective.
Gen.19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2.And he said, "Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways."......
3.And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
They aren't bodiless Kosta.
......Ping
Me-me-me solipsism.
Real is only subjective: what is spoken of is objective and objective is not a synonym for real
Now you are making up the meanings of the words as well? I suppose with your sentence above, that's fine. But real diectionaries (American heritage) defines "objective" as, first and foremost:
1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality.
Hint: the derivative root of objective is an object, ob+ject=something you can throw.
Real is only subjective: what is spoken of is objective
subjective=existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective) [dictonary definition, Unobridged].
You are contradicting yourself.
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.