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.
LDS believe too...do you consider them Christian?
-A8
But then it's not enough to "just believe." It's a simplistic slogan. Now you are forced to qualify it.
You are presenting the deceptive "we are all a little right" theology that says no church is God's true church, or, worse, all churches are God's true church; everyone is right a little bit.
God would never teach us such a lie.
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible
Yes it is, it's always possible that even the worst sinner will repent, and that the worst apostate would come back to the catholic and apostolic Church and embrace its orthodox faith.
But you are appealing to your own interpretation of Scripture. They could just appeal to their interpretation of Scripture and say the same thing right back to you.
-A8
Then, based on you rewriting of the post, you undoubtedly think that Jesus is the Author of Confusion. For it is certain that, in the wide spectrum of beliefs you cite, there are essential differences that put to lie the idea that God can BE the Way the Truth and the Life, and His Church can BE the “pillar and ground of the Truth.” He founded all of these denominations, according to you, without regard for having even one essential doctrine agreed upon by all on your list. “Jesus is God/No, He’s only a creature” is but the first of a multitude of contradictions found between the various denominational combinations in your list.
Some God your Jesus is! Mine established THE Truth in His Church, not a multiplicity of mutually contradictory belief systems in a surfeit of man-made denominations.
If you cannot understand that the Church is meant to be a visible, hierarchical structure set in place both to have visibility and create unity of belief, as opposed to merely being an umbrella for “all believers” with no regard for unity of belief, then no one can help you. You’re on your own. Claiming that all of these mutually opposed denominations are all founded by Christ doesn’t get you off to a good start in discernment of essentials. That is Exhibit A for the need for unified, structured, creed-based Christianity, tracing its origin and history organically to Pentecost.
***Are you conceeding that you worship St. Gregory over Christ?***
Think of all the churches that begin with ..”Our Lady of....”
do they worship the Lady?
That is a rather disingenuous comment. I hope your scripture interpretation skills are better than your post interpreting skills.
Which denomination do you think comes closest to getting it right?
-A8
What were the names of the 2 fathers you mentioned in your post?
And as to the “Lutheran” signs, I am not sure of your point. There are quite a few Orthodox here who have complained that many of the churches here in the US are more clubs for the seperate ethnic groups than anything else. Not to say that there are not a great many that are not that way, but there have been some posters here who wish that the "converts" would just leave the church so they can get back to the old ways.
What is your evidence that these "keys" were indeed imparted to you???
If you are honestly surprised in the recent statements from the Vatican, they you haven’t spent any time researching the RCC ecclesiology. By the very nature of their theology, they can not accept that any true Christian Church exists except for one that is in communion and ruled by the Pope. That is in effect, the basis for much of their theology.
Recently in the last 40 or 50 or so years, Rome has said that they are in impaired or partial communion with all those who have had valid Trinitarian baptism (which may or may not include those in Churches with valid Apostolic Succession). In effect, making non Catholic Christian part of the Catholic Church in some sort of way. As a Methodist, I suspect you have a similar doctrine of the Invisible Church.
That statement 40 years ago was news. This isn’t.
Of course that would include Mormons who have Christ as their Lord and Savior. And Arians. And even JWs.
It would not include those who do NOT HAVE Jesus as their Lord and Savior, whether Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian,....etc.
Jesus is not in a box or a bottle. He’s revealed in the true scriptures.
Let us imagine that much written about desert island with a shipwrecked non-Christian stranded on it.
A bottle floats ashore and inside it is Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John....no more and no less.
Could the stranded man hear only the Apostle John’s Chapter 3 account about Jesus and become a true Christian? After all, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”
I hope so. Ecumenism is largely an evil movement.
It’s called “irony.” But why dodge the essentials of the point I was making? Do you see the contradictions? Do you see that, deriving from your assertion that Jesus “founded” all of these differing belief systems, He evidently *must* be the Author of confusion. Several of the denominations you list deny that Jesus is God from all eternity, while the others affirm it. That’s just for starters. There are, of course, hundreds of other self-evident contradictions between these groups collectively. If my observation of your post is flawed, then, by all means, defend the notion that God is *not* the Author of confusion based solely on that post.
What is the title of the FR article to include parentheses?
1. Ecumenism: the Catholic Church clearly has misrepresented itself to the Protestants....or represented itself in such a way that it would take a team of lawyers to decipher it.
2. Apostolicity: that doesn’t have anything to do with the recent letter...directly. It’s a challenge to the pope’s hyper-denominational claims. It says that their claims of apostolic succession are extremely suspect.
Take Augustine (not an early church father, but bear with me). The Reformed, Baptist, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran confessions all claim him as one of their own. And at times, he fit into each rather nicely. But in the end Augustine was Augustine, and was no more a Lutheran of today than he was a Roman Catholic of today. He believed some rather non Roman Catholic things about predestination at times, though he didn’t make it a hard and fast rule. He also was not sure on the canonicty of the some of the books we debate about today (read his Retractions).
Given enough time, you can find a lot of stuff in the ECF’s that agree with whom ever is reading them. So when xzins says that he agrees with some of them, he is right. And when Claud is shocked by that, he is also right. Depends on who and what you read of them.
It was right there in the RCC catechism! Heck, back in 1998 when the JDF was signed, one of the reason the LCMS and assorted synods didn't sign was because of this very issue! I suspect there were alot of talks done in such a way that everyone pretended that wasn't the position (and from the records of the Lutheran/Catholic dialog, I am sure of it), but it has been on paper for almost 50 years.
As to the RCC "hyper denominational" claims, again that isn't really new. Anyone who is surprised hasn't spent the time to read the RCC catechism or ecumenical statements. They have never viewed it as a union, but as making the other parties convert to Catholicism. Because of their internal structures, they can do it no other way.
Which is why I have never been a big fan of ecumenism. It means that neither side is being honest.
That is a good question. I personally think my own denomination (Calvary Chapel) gets about as close as you can get since we preach the entire bible cover to cover in a period of 5 to 12 years. If I didn't think so, I probably wouldn't go there.
My experience on this forum suggests that as far as doctrinal correctness, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church seems to be among the strongest denominations however, I personally have not been sold on some of their doctrines, but I can see how they come to the positions that they do.
My experience suggests that different denominations tend to have differences in emphasis rather than differences in essentials. This would appear to be why Christ's body is a whole body and not just some glob of flesh. Some denominations tend to take on the role of the head, and emphasize doctrine. Some denominations take on the role of hands, and put a strong emphasis on giving and helping. Some denominations take on the role of the feet and walk to the ends of the earth to spread the Good News. Some take the role of the mouth and put emphasis on teaching.
I thank God for the plethora of denominations. In the essentials I find that most all protestant denominations are in unity. I am certain that if we had but one single Church to which everyone toed the line, that the Church of Christ would become a totalitarian dictatorship. History has shown that when power is centralized, tyranny is the result. The United States of America could never have come to fruition if not for the Reformation and the subsequent dissipation of power away from the centralized European church.
Frankly I am quite comfortable in just about any Christ centered Protestant Church. God led me away from the LDS Church and led me to where I am today. I have some minor disagreements with some of the doctrinal postitions taken by my Church, but those are not essential and are more form than substance.
I know we don't agree on this point, but at least see the logic: If the infallible God establishes His Church and it includes persons, doctrines and structure, should we not follow Him?
And if apostolic succession is an integral part of how God wants His Church to continue until the end of the ages when He will come in glory?
Only God matters and His holy will. I agree. We disagree on what God's will is.
Regardless, you're a gem of a Christian, and your love for Jesus radiates on every post! God bless you and please pray for me.
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.