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.
Lucky for them that Jesus left the Holy SPirit to handle all that(literacy stuff).. you know, the paraclete/comfort'er.. If he didn't the people would be in the hands of the clergy.. like the Jews were when the Lord was murdered.. by clergy..
For all it’s worth, Moses wasn’t present at creation, but I think he recorded it accurately, don’t you?
I do not believe that.
***It’s not an insult; it’s what we believe.***
And it is not an insult when I say I am saved, through Jesus Christ, without your church.
In the beginning was the Word...
What must I do to be saved, said the Jailer. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Good enough for me.
***For all it’s worth, Moses wasn’t present at creation, but I think he recorded it accurately, don’t you?
I do not believe that.***
Enough said. You do not believe the Bible.
And the Holy Spirit, directed men such as Luther and Calvin to restore it?
Wouldn't that necessarily mean the Holy Spirit restored the Church out of One-ness and into many-ness? I think a case could be made that fragmenting the Body of Christ in such a fashion is a prima facie case against the proposition. Just a thought...
Thanks very much for your posts and discussions. May God bless you and yours.
No it's not. Insults come from ego. Don't let other people's beliefs insult you. If you think they are wrong, pray for them, and thank God.
Amen.. and a thousand other metaphorical codes..
Multifarious in scope and wonderful in demeanor..
And an entity that will be as real with you are you are with him..
Personal and available.. and a doting parent..
All creation groans for his ultimate appearance..
maranatha..
But a judge can be in error, and a church can be in error, also. Even mine. No church is perfect, because they are run by men. The Scripture is perfect, because it is inspired by God. That is why I say I am saved by the blood of Jesus. It says to believe in Jesus but no where can I find where it says beieve in the church and you shall be saved.
LoL..
It was a question, to give pause to think. I am not infering that it was the case, only that it might be.
What a ludicrous question. Do you imagine Protestants are adverse to kneeling to God?
Protestants kneel to none but Christ.
We do not make the mistake of the RCC which encourages falling down before wooden and gilded statues of men. There is so much admonishment in Scripture against what you do that most Protestants fear for the souls of our RC friends on this one subject alone. God does not take kindly to idol-worship. In fact, its prohibition is the second commandment. And with Mary fast becoming a co-redeemer, you're dangerously hedging the first commandment as well.
You kneel to graven images of human beings. Repent of it.
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." -- Psalm 115:3-8 "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
You know, this monring I just got through explaning to another reformed poster about this and I will not repeat it this late.
Maybe some other time.
Sometime a gardener has to prune a few dead or dying branches in order for the tree to blossom. That doesn’t mean the the plant is dead, but it might have died if the pruning hadn’t taken place.
I have respect for that man.. at least he is HONEST..
Been the case for millenia.. At least he SAID IT..
What he said is earth shaking and should set the tone for conversation..
The daughters of the roman catholic church should KNOW IT..
So that the true church can distance itself.. from the RCC, the EO, and her/their daughters..
If I've gotten you mixed up with someone else, Kosta, please correct me.
LoL.. Exactly..
It isn’t ludicrous. It is an illustration between our different performances of worship.
As stiff necked as you think that I may be, I will physically kneel before God. Or what you might say is my belief in what God is - the Eucharist. The Bible is full of the command to kneel. How much does the average Protestant kneel? How much do you?
I have asked in another thread about the practices of worship as it pertains to kneeling before God and I have had no good answer. I have had none here; I will rely on my time spent in Protestant services: none. Not only a little, none.
I am truly sad about this; I thought that Bible only meant Bible only. And that words meant specific things.
We're told to go into a closet and pray in solitude lest we appear to be boasting about our piety which you seem to be dangerously close to doing by extolling the hours you're on your knees.
And you are conveniently dodging the real issue here, Mark. The real issue is that you bow to the stock of a tree. And I've given you ample examples of Scriptures which tell us this is a profanity to God.
I would rather stand before Jesus Christ than bow to your wooden statues of men.
Please see this recent post by MHGinTN on this very issue. ( 2933)
FK: "Presumably, if [Adam and Eve] had never sinned, then they would still be there today, waiting for an occasional visit by God."
Occasional? How do you figure that? Is God not present all the time in someone who is spiritually pure? Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. The pristine are in continuous communion with God. (emphasis added)
No, to my knowledge we are given no indication at all that the Spirit indwelt Adam and Eve before the Fall. Do you have any evidence? Jesus sent the Spirit to sinners. Adam had no need for salvation before he sinned, so the Spirit should not have been in him until when and if he ever repented.
Of course the devil snatched them from God. Even your favorite, St. Paul, admits to the same (and Christ died so he may release us), but you probably don't remember those verses.
You're right, I don't remember those verses. Brother, could you spare a dime? :) We were all born equally slaves to sin, but God never lost control of His elect. The elect were and are always in His hand. Barring the usual exceptions, ALL those God predestined did grow up to become believers and followers of Christ. satan stole NOTHING from God.
Let's say that you and I are at a restaurant, and after the meal you, for no apparent reason, put a $100 bill on the table. Let's say that I just pick it up, while looking you straight in the eye, and then walk away. You say nothing. Did I just "steal" or "snatch" from you? Of course not because it was with your tacit approval. It is the same with God and satan, AND, God retains 100% control throughout.
No but [Protestants] believe that if they do commit murder they will still go to heaven.
In the abstract, "Yes", murder does not disqualify one from Heaven. Moses and David were both unlawful (i.e. without God's order) murderers, for example. But no true believing Protestant takes this as a "license" to murder. Instead, we learn from the mistakes of even the greatest Biblical figures. There is simply no connection with our theology and the implications YOUR like-mindeds ascribe to it.
We Reformers "SAY" we follow scripture. Well, what does scripture say??? Does it support signing a "belief" form and then going out and sinning for the rest of our lives? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. "BY NO MEANS" says scripture. So, THAT'S what we ALWAYS preach, but somehow, we are not "allowed" to have that belief by the Apostlics because it doesn't fit their paradigm of us? That doesn't seem very fair. (pout) :)
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.