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.
A mere hypothesis. However, if it is so, then relativity prescribes an infinite variety of possible solutions.
All revelation is subjective and not innately falsifiable, however a statement of the revelation could easily be a falsity by the rules of grammar of whatever language, e.g., Latin, Greek, German, French, requiring the talent of a nominalist such as Occam to justify.
Maybe we will also know how many time we have been formally introduced to demaons and though they were angels...
Based on the fact that the OT calls angels "Sons of God." Your disagreement is based on what? Mine is that angels have no bodies and cannot mate with women...the author of that passage was eating mushrooms, or attended some New Age conference, or both.
How does reincarnation play out in this interpretation of Scripture?
This has turned out to be one heretical forum after all. Now we are going into reincarnation?
Isn’t it a Protestant Principle of some kind that scripture is capable of proper interpretation by a common reading - or something like that? Basically that there isn’t authority outside sola scriptura necessary to get the proper meaning.
Someone correct me if I’ve mistated this position.
In any case, isn’t this discussion a disproof of that principle?
Not really. Truth can be complete truth and the other can be incomplete truth. At any rate, truth of the Bible is not the question; the question is the truthfullness of interpretation. Through Christ we can interpret the Bible by discerning its truth more fully. Thus, our Lord shows us that saving a man's life is not a sin even on a Saturday. We can also discern God more fully through Christ. Thus, through the Gospels we come to understand that God is one but triune.
If you mean ranked "generally" then this would seem to be a contradiction because some scriptures would be "truer" than others
No, just more important. Surely you don't want to put on the same level the words written by mortal men after they came out of a trans, or woke up from a dream, "saw" a vision or "heard" a voice, and then wrote down what they "saw" or "heard," and the words spoken in a living language for others to hear by Christ in Person.
For basic salvation issues, of course the Gospels are at the top. However, what about abortion, for example?
Where would you find "justification" for abortion in the Gospels? Or that it's okay for the people of God to kill the infidels and their infants? But you will find it in the OT without any problems.
Even within the OT, some books are more important than others. Thus, Genesis, Isaiah, Proverbs, etc. trump historical books as far as Christianity is concerned. All we have to do is look at the books mentioned in the Gospels. Those are the "core" OT books that form part of the New Testament. So, by reading the Gospels we also read those verses of the OT that are most important.
Of course, reading the OT puts things into perspective of sorts and shouldn't be ignored. Like I said, during the 40 days of Great lent, and for the above reason, we go through the readings of the entire Old Testament, leading us, just like the OT revelations did, to the very meaning of God's revelation, the Paschal Sunday, the Resurrection.
I thought that Peter recognized Paul as scripture, and Paul was obviously writing TO churches
We have no proof that 1, and 2 Peter were written by Peter or even in the 1st century. All 1st century references that can be corroborated mention only Old Testament as Scripture.
There is no such entirty as "Judeo-Christian" God. There is God, period. In His full revelation to man we know that he is one God in Three Persons. The Jews, Muslims, and Hindus don't know that.
God does not belong to Christians or Jews. Different rleigions have different "concepts" of God. Thus, we may say "Jewish concept of God," or "Christian concept of God, " etc. but not "Judeo-Christian" God.
The fancy word is perspicuous. They will tell you even a 5-year-old can read the Bible and "understand."
In any case, isn’t this discussion a disproof of that principle?
Sola scriptura is just an ego-centric superstition.
Has the Pope spoken ex-cathedra on this issue?
I'm inclined to accept the Pope's interpretation (whatever it is - it can't be as weird as what we've seen here) over the interpretation of Pong and Diego.
Thanks for the info and the correct word.
I’m betting that even the most sola of all sola scripturalist would not claim that the Revelation of St. John the Divine is perspicuous.
Aren't you the one who doesn't believe a real, historic Adam and Eve existed?
LoL.. Picky rascal aren't you..
True.. Many "Jews and Christians" think they have God wrapped up in a so-called contract so solid God is hamstrung from any new or variations of old activities..
They both might be surprised when/if they try to sue him.. More likely they could care less about God.. its control of the members of their group they want..
I have a hunch God is not a moron..
Think of it this way Kosta. If God went out of His way to tell us, on several occasions, that angels have substance, they eat, etc. He must want us to know that fact.
.....Ping
As [Genesis 4:1-2] clearly states: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. The Hebrew word "Yacaph" can mean "to continue to do a thing....conceive again". Post #2234 makes that very clear.
Adam had sex with Eve. She conceived. She bore Cain and she again (yacaph) bare his brother Abel. If she was already pregnant with Cain.....then this verse makes perfect sense. Paternal twins!
It had already been suggested in scripture earlier that she was pregnant from Satan: [Genesis 3:13-16] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled (Paul says seduced in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3]) me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
To believe that we're just talking here about eating an apple is more of a stretch!
Tell me why Cain is not listed in the genealogy of Adam and we'll see if you can stretch that one too.
I don't think it is questionable as I've given several scriptures. I understand that it is "new" because main stream churches don't teach it but it has been there all the time. Invincibly Ignorant posted other places in Jude that speak about the fallen angels.
How does reincarnation play out in this nterpretation of Scripture
It doesn't. There is NO reincarnation. I believe that the soul came into being when God first created it, whenever that was, was on earth in a spirit body (as we will again be) in the first age. Animals were flesh but we were spirit in that age. God destroyed that first age because of Satan's rebellion but He did not destroy us, our souls. All souls have to be born again (born from above) of woman and go through this 2nd. age to see if we follow Satan or God. At the end of this age, or when we die, our same spirit body steps out of this flesh body. We are the same soul throughout.
........Ping
[Hebrews 13:2] Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
How about a revelation that IS subject to falsification?
I am sorry....I did not notice your post before posting exactly the same thing. #2417
Seven 0 ......The rule in scripture is natural first, then spiritual. The genealogies in Genesis are given for the natural man first. But Christ does not come out of the firstborn. The line through Seth is the genealogy of Christ and Cain is not a part of that. There are several other examples of this in Genesis. Shem. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Pharaz are not firstborn.
Seven there is a big difference.
Gen.10:1 Now these are The Generations OF THE SONS OF NOAH, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood.
And it goes on to list them. Now look at that of Cain in Gen.4:17-24. It is nothing like the sons of Noah that were not ancestors of Christ.
Adam's genealogy begins in 5:1:
This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; It goes on, beginning with Seth, (Able was not listed as he was murdered and had no progeny). Cain is conspicuously absent.
This is very different then natural man and firstborn, etc. as in the other genealogies you mentioned. Cain is not a son of Adam.
......Ping
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.