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.
I like that being a boat'er.. Weigh anchor to move to new spot..
Maybe, maybe not.. Nobody knows everything..
I see..
Thanks for all your contributions on this thread. I really had no idea how Calvinism was so deeply riddled with errors. It’s shocking, frankly.
And sad.
LoL... WHoa... LoL..
We can draw paralleles with unrelated things. It's a straw man. To claim what the Bible we read is pristine is a lie because we have evidence to prove it. You are more than welcome to pull your head out of the sand and look for it. I have mentioned dozens of facts about the Bible that show that human hands left singificant fingerprints on the scriptures, all of which amount to corruption.
I claim no indwelling knowlege, nor do I surpass the learned. Yet there are truths that can be measured against the Church’s knowledge of Scripture and Her teachings. If I err or am false, it should be easy to determine that. But if the Holy Spirit should buoy me, then perhaps I might make sense even to the heretic, even to the apostate, even to the fallen.
Given what you've faced on this thread, it would sure come in handy!
It is evil.
To ply a doctrine that states that man has no worth and no effect is to rob him of hope and to stop any good works that he may do.
Calvin, even more than Luther, has brought evil upon the world. I trust that the merciful God has an appropriate eternity set up for Calvin.
Well, no.
Either you submit to the Lord God Almighty or else you don’t. There is no middle way. And when you look Him in the eye on Judgement Day, what are you going to say? Are you going to call Jean Calvin in as your lawyer?
Or are you going to own up to each and every thing that you ever did and pray to God in His mercy that He will spare you from the fires of hell for your transgressions?
If you are predestined, then you are truly hosed. Based upon your postings here, I don’t think that Las Vegas would give even odds as to your final fate. I’d estimate that at 3:1 or lower. But that’s just me. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Him.
Well said..
Wow, that's the first statement of God's sovereignty I've seen by a Catholic in a long time.
I will be covered by the blood of christ..
For thats why he suffered for my sake.. and yours..
My only righteousness is because of the blood of christ now and then..
I'am grateful now and will be then..
Many limit the value of the blood of christ..
And, to them, it will be limited at that time, as they lived..
No one deserves it, can purchase it, or even can earn it..
Its FREE NOW but worth more than human life..
The blood of the final lamb splashed on the doorposts of your heart is vital..
The reality of a very important metaphorical object lesson of the past..
Its real and is the pearl of great price.. sell all you have and gain it.. (if need be)
Then stop arguing from scripture. Don't quote any scripture to support your theology.
Now tell me, without resorting to scripture, why your church's beliefs have any validity whatsoever.
LOL. Once again we see the RCC teaches a very impersonal salvation.
ROMANS 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the ELECTION of grace. 1 THESSALONIANS 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your ELECTION of God. 2 PETER 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and ELECTION sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fallROMANS 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the ELECTION hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the ELECTION, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
I don’t believe it was a coincidence that the Book of Romans was written to the Church in Rome. Too bad they never bothered to read it.
Evidently. Recall post 2,872 where Mark sang the praises of "persecution."
lol.
I was series.
Since I’m a Calvinist in the tradition of someone or other, I will defend the old boy.
Calvin fit right into his era, and except for his brilliance and work ethic, his ideas of government, justice, crime and punishment, etc. were no different than those in the nations round about him.
There is no one who can say that God is surprised by anything IF they believe that God is all-knowing. Therefore, there is no one who can get away from the seeming “injustice” of one guy being saved and another guy being lost; one guy having tragedy and another having great wealth.
Did God not know these things? Therefore, there is little reason to pretend some kind of superiority toward those who say God planned everything, because whether directly or INDIRECTLY, He did.
This simply raises the question: Do we trust Him and His love and goodness? If we do, then we gladly put everything in His hands and know that all things will work together for good.
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.