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 am not arguing from scripture. My argument is that the scriptures have been corurpted by man's redactions and additions and deletions and versions.
This doesn't mean the scriptures do not contain God's revealed truth. The Church has safeguarded that truth from the days of the Apostles. That is our quality control check that the Bible is understood in context and mindset of the Church stablished by Christ and not by some men 1,500 years later, or by private interpretations.
Now tell me, without resorting to scripture, why your church's beliefs have any validity whatsoever
I just did, but you have not told me why your private interpretations hold any validity, or what quality control do you have (other than some Gnostic notion of inner spirit guiding you) that the Bible as you read it, as is, as the Church put it together, is the Scripture, if you deny the Church?
“LOL Once again, we see that the RCC teaches a very impersonl salvation”
It amazes me that statements made like this are expected to be received as if they were a gospel truth.
What you have written is not the truth. And because of that fact, it isn’t something to LOL about.
(I guess I’m weary of all the lol-ing on this thread—and on this forum).
It’s implicit in everything that we do.
That’s why we have a crucifix. It is an ongoing reminder of what the sacrifice of Christ means. God is our Master. But it is because we are willing, not because He ordained it secretly, not because we are robot slaves, but because we make a daily effort to love Him and fallible as we are, we will do our best each and every day.
We are servants, not slaves. We are not mindless insects, nor are we preprogrammed mechanical devices. We choose God, or not. And that is how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted.
I’m trying to illustrate the theological mess that you people have concocted for yourselves.
Look at this:
No one deserves it, can purchase it, or even can earn it..
and
Its real and is the pearl of great price.. sell all you have and gain it
Not only does it not follow, it seems that you’re cavorting with the Mormons again.
I didn’t think that I was singing, maybe humming a little.
Persecution for persecution’s sake? That is the way of tyrants the world over. Including the brilliant and talented Jean Calvin.
The Catholic Church should never have gone to the extremes that it did. We who come after owe deep apologies to those who were unjustly persecuted. But we should never have gotten ourselves into the position where such heresies were able to sweep the earth and tuck so many earnest and upright people into the devil’s care. And that, I think, is the greater negligence.
I didn’t think that I was singing, maybe humming a little.
Persecution for persecution’s sake? That is the way of tyrants the world over. Including the brilliant and talented Jean Calvin.
The Catholic Church should never have gone to the extremes that it did. We who come after owe deep apologies to those who were unjustly persecuted. But we should never have gotten ourselves into the position where such heresies were able to sweep the earth and tuck so many earnest and upright people into the devil’s care. And that, I think, is the greater negligence.
Does the EO recommend the King James (1611) english version of the bible for those that do not read Greek? Is the KJV also riddled with errors in your opinion?
Once again your understanding falls short.
We believe in an extremely personal salvation. Each of us is to face the Lamb in Judgement. Even your examples, intended to show that man doesn’t matter in his own salvation, do.
the church validates scripture validates the church validates scripture validates the church validates scripture validates the church validates scripture validates the church...
A glorious testimony. I’m so glad to have read it.
There are enough eyes looking upon the body of Christ seeking discord. Absolutely there are groups outside the body of Christ due to severe theological flaws, but there is much unnecessary discord over interpretations that are not central to salvation.
THE KJV was translated under strict orders not to contradict the anglican church. Further ascribing grammatic properties of English words to words translated into English from other languages is naive.
folks looking to insist on a literalist interpretation of scripture should learn the literal langauge used in writing it.
But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. – Matthew 12:24
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. - Matthew 26:65
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. – 2 Timothy 3:5
Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. – Matthew 5:11-12
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. - Romans 8:14-17
Praise God!!!
Indeed, Christ tells us to receive all of Scripture!
You seem obsessed to have everyone acknowledge your scholarship, offering broad assertions such as, “[the] Bible ... show(s) that human hands left singificant fingerprints on the scriptures, all of which amount to corruption.” Let us look at that assertion from God’s perspective. Yes, men have corrupted the written directions dictated (in a manner of speaking), the most gross being the Masoretic texts where Jews decided to edit out anything that one might construe as referring to Rabbi Jesus. But that begs the question of how could men defeat God’s sovereign plans? Is it so easy to edit out what God actually is instructing with the scriptures? You would answer that with a strong affirmative as evidenced by your many references to corruption and inferences that the texts cannot be trusted to do that which God intends. I would offer in reply that you do not actually understand what it is that God does with His words in the believer and what it is that He has designed into the Word such that even the corrupting you claim has not diminished the utility to which God directs His Word. You would make a good heretic because you consider your own counsel to be superior to anything you don’t comprehend in God’s economy.
From an Orthodox website (http://www.lxx.org/): "We are taking the New King James Version as a starting point -- "boilerplate" you might say -- and changing it everywhere it is different from the Septuagint. The result will indeed be a Septuagint translation."
Are they also naive? I have read on other EO sites that the KJV is recommended for NT study. More naivety?
“or what quality control do you have (other than some Gnostic notion of inner spirit guiding you)”
And what “quality” control check do you have over the church’s interpretation of the truth? Is it the same “Gnostic” notion of inner spirit guiding them?
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.