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.
Hi xzins. It is my understanding that the three apostolic Churches of Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental all claim to be the Church that is in the right, but still holds the others to be apostolic but flawed Churches. Am I wrong about this? Also, do any of these three Churches hold the Anglican Church as being apostolic?
Freegards
The key is to remember we are brothers and sisters by faith, not by membership of a certain church. Any so called “church” that says its way or the high way to hell, as the rcc does, is the true heretic and ally of the devil whether they intend to be or not. Christ tells us that is we are born of the water and spirit, our names will be written in the book of life and we will have eternal life. Anyone who tells you differently is not speaking the Truth and it is a lie to bring you away from the glorious gift of the Spirit. “Many will come in my name but will not be of me,” Christ said. Remember that. Those who limit the Kingdom of God by putting made up doctrine, tradition or requirements on faith that are not based in scripture and only fit what they want rather than what God wants will be judged and condemned by their own arrogance.
All the historical information we need as true Christians is the Bible. The lineage of popes and bishops is useless and not important to the furthering of the kingdom of God. We were called as Christians to spread the good news. Not to create a power hungry arrogant religion so it gives us what we want rather than what God wants. The rcc’s new statement has served as a blow to Christian reformers inside the rcc who strive to bring it back to Christ. I hope and pray that they are not discouraged and will continue on their work to open the eyes and hearts of the leaders in the rcc to Christ’s love, truth, wisdom and grace. Just remember fellow Christians, pray often, put your love, faith and trust in God, read the Bible and live a good life for the glory of Him. Don’t ever loose sight of that. That is all He expects. Pick up your cross and follow Him!
bookmark
What ecumenism?
Rome has never budging one inch on the Biblical truth of Sola Fide. Until they agree we are saved by faith alone we will never have one thing in common.
He sure is obsessed with Catholics, but people have always been trying to mind our business. Fortunately (as one who has served), the overwhelming majority of Army chaplains are not similar bigots, in case anyone gets the wrong idea when he identifies himself as one.
Actually, HS, making it personal injures your argument.
You can read through all these threads, and you can find only where I've said that the RCC is a fellow Christian denomination. You can also find where I've disputed different doctrines that they teach.
So far as my military career is concerned, I served my country faithfully for over 20 years. I counseled the living, prayed for the injured, and honored the dead. Many were of no faith group; many were of unusual groups; many were of evangelical groups; many were of historic Protestant groups; many were of other historic Christian groups; and many were Catholic. Not once was I ever accused of proselytism, because not once did I ever engage in it. That is far more than I can say for many on this board.
The need to proselytize is the true test of those who accept others' denominations as truly of the Father.
But, I did stand beside injured Catholics and, because Catholic priests were NOT available, guide them in Catholic prayers printed by their own priests. I did conduct memorial services for their dead. And I did honor and care for their families.
You have no idea what a right shoulder patch really means.
NSDQ
As this article points out, the human lineage so valued by the RCC is quite suspect. Additionally, of course, we are told by Paul in his instruction to Timothy:
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.
I would think that mythical lineages would also fit the spirit of that instruction.
In any case, Paul clearly supports the spiritual above the human when he affirms again that God's work is BY FAITH.
As always, sister, your posts as spot on.
funny then how they chose Lutheran and not Christian.
In Germany it’s called Evangelisch and not Lutheran.
The RCC church down the road from my boyhood home had “Franciscan” on its sign out front. Why would that be? The Othodox Church a few miles away, when it was built about the time I graduated from college, had “Greek” on its sign out front. Why would that be?
Where is the word Christ in “Greek Orthodox????”
Where is it in “Roman Catholic?” And what was that stuff about “Franciscan” on the sign I mentioned?
So far as that obviously American sign for the Lutheran Church you posted, it means you did not address at all the fact that it’s called “Evangelische” in Germany.
Now....do you think that the church in Corinth to which Paul wrote his letter had a sign out front?
(And did it say “Roman Catholic” on it anyplace?)
Orthodox means Correct Worship or Correct Glorification (it’s translated from Pravoslav) the secular meaning comes after and inspired by that.
Are you conceding btw that Lutherans in America worship Luther over Christ?
i don’t think they had a sign bearing the name of their Elder.
Funny then how they chose "Roman Catholic" and not Christian.
sounds like a beef with the Latins to me...
Funny how they chose Greek Orthodox and not Christian.
Orthodox means correct worship or correct glorification or correct prayer. The orthodox were concerned with worshiping God. The lutherans it would follow more concered with worshiping Luther.
Are you conceeding that you worship St. Gregory over Christ?
see that whole ‘correct worship’ still in there?
won’t find it on lutheran churches, they’re worried about luther, and about being ‘First’ but not at all worried about putting Christ or wirshipping GOD on their sinage.
I find that the "Orthodox" on this forum are the most arrogant of all Christians.
ar·ro·gant(
r
-gnt)
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.