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.
All men are fallen and all men deserve God's wrath. God has chosen some men to redeem by the sacrifice of His Son through faith in Jesus Christ. Those people will be given new eyes and new ears and a new heart with which to understand Scripture and recognize their salvation by Christ's atonement. That understanding, given them by the Holy Spirit, will permit them to live lives that glorify His name.
The rest of mankind will receive the punishment rightly due all of us.
There will be no one in hell who has received saving grace through faith in Christ. There will be no one in hell who doesn't "deserve it." And there will be no one in heaven who does "deserve it."
Read Ephesians 1 & 2 and Romans 8 & 9. Your argument is with Scripture, not me.
At least most Protestants on these threads try to understand the RCC and use things like New Advent as a foundation for our discussions.
You, OTOH, say absurd lies as if they were true, i.e. "Humans are evil decendents of Satan."
If you want to be taken seriously (and I have my doubts) you need to start debating the real issues and stop these idiotic diatribes.
I'd think you'd want to be more exact. Total depravity is no more than the proneness to sin, the sin nature, that is inherited from Adam. Paul points this out.
Humans are descendants of Adam.
I wanted to note this ridiculous line. Of course it matters. Everything in life hinges on our believing Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.
The point Rome misses is that no man can have faith and be saved unless God first quickens his mind and regenerates his heart to enable him to believe.
Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Do you understand what Paul is saying here?
It's no surprise you're having trouble with this. Either God elects or men and magisteriums get together and presume to dole out bits and pieces of God's salvation to men seeking to earn God's favor. But unmerited grace just doesn't work that way...
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48
Conjecture? Hardly. From a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox source:
"This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition.
Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin).
This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity." [from The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8, by William B. Wallace, Th, PhD, from bible.org
But, of course one always has the option of conveniently invoking the "leading" of some spirit as "proof" that facts are not facts.
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the ...
And what "proof" do you have that those words were written by the one claimed, and at the time claimed? Simple: you don't, as as one of your co-copnfessionalists says "You got nothin'".
How are they possibly different from Comma Johanneum and others, such as Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), or Mark 16:9-20, which do not exist in the oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark, and so on?
I don't think so. It was very clear then as it is now that one needs only the Holy Spirit. reading the Binble wihtout the HS is as good as not reading it. And if you don't have the Bible, the HS will teach you all that you need to know without it! My understanidng of your message here is: all those people who need the Bible also need the Holy Spirit. So why are all those people toting Bibles?
The footnotes don't tell you the whole story. The truth is those verses were added, thereby corrupting the scripture.
Try John 7:53-8:11 or Mark 16:9-20. Same story.
Lol! : )
Thank you. I don't know what moves me, but I do know that additions to the Bible are corruption. The usual rationalistic excuse provided is that the Comma agrees with other Triniatrian concepts of the Bible. Not true. Nothig is as obviously Trinitarian as this fraudulent insertion. The Church Fathers would have loved to have had it! It would have made their word against heresies of Arius and other Chriostological deformations a piece of cake!
Unfortunately, our fundamentalists insist that Textus Receptus is the "original" text which is about as true as claiming that the earth is really flat (same mentality).
They actually insist that the Comma be inserted into the text not because it wans't in any of the older manuscripts but because it was, get this, in the 16th century TR.
My leaning is that we are dealing here with flat-earth flat-heads.
“John 7:53-8:11”
The incident of the woman taken in adultery is in the oldest manuscripts, some after Luke 21:38 and some after John 7:36 and some after John 21:24. All that it proves is that the incident was factual but the scribes were ignorant of its exact position.
The veres are not found in the ealriest manuscripts and in the the earliest complete Christian bibles. Howevever, a minority of early Greek manuscripts contained them, indicating that the Church did not use the same set of copies. In other words, one of those versions is wrong.
I stand corrected, sorry.. you're preaching my tune..
Without the Holy Spirit you're merely playing church.. or some other game..
After all there is only ONE sin that will NOT be forgiven.. ONLY ONE..
I mean not forgiven by GOD, not by your church.. or you personally..
Must be a reason for that..
Without the Holy Spirit you are undone, hopeless, deluded, tricked, conned, pitiful, and a mere Primate.. thats needs to be reborn..
You first. LOL
And how do you define blasphemy against the HS? Those who constantly (in vain) invoke His name, or those who substitute their inner desires with the Holy Spirit? Or both?
Denying his ministry.. as Gods only appointed authority on this planet..
Has a lot to do with what you think the church is.. and Isn't..
I say to them “proof exists but you may not be able to receive it.” Namely, I know Jesus personally. And I have known Him through the indwelling Spirit for nearly a half century. I love Him, I believe Him and I trust Him.
He is not a hypothesis. He lives.
God’s Name is I AM.
Abraham did not have the benefit of God's revelation in Scripture - nor did Isaac. And the revelation in Scripture known to David was incomplete even as he was adding to it. When Christ was enfleshed, the disciples saw and heard the revelation of Jesus Christ – but the revelation in Scripture was still incomplete. And it remained incomplete as the revelations of Jesus Christ were accumulated. Indeed, to this day written words of God exist which have not yet been revealed to us (Daniel, Revelation).
To whom much is given, much is expected!
If a person has heard the revelation of Jesus Christ and rejected it, the word itself will his judge.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9
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.