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.
Strop making things up, hosepipe! Latin was the only written language of Europe for centuries. What did it matter which language the illiterate masses spoke? The books were written in Latin. What other language were the priests supposed to use?
How could Germans understand Italians and Saxons? And how oculd they write whentheir languages were not developed enough? Why, Saxon language probably had 500 grunts, man, ox, axe, house... Through Latin, they all read and wrote the same, and understood each other.
Latin is a litrugical language fashioned after Greek. It can express complex theological concepts that were impossible to express in local languages. Latin was a necessity, not some evil device used by the Church to keep everyone in the "dark."
That’s KNOWING, as opposed to WILLING
Irrelevant. It HAD to come true.
I don't know what your point is, xzins. We all agree that Gosd is omniscient and knows what our choices will be.
Christ chose Judas because He (fore)knew Judas would betray Him, not because God forced Judas to betray Him.
yes, they have the knowledge, the gnosis
That is irrelevant.
Judas was destined to betray, and it would work out that way no matter what.
“Cronos, you mean to tell me that we are goinf to let historical facts in the way of free-lance un-fact production?”
Yeah, historical facts are a bitc-.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonic.htm
“Drawing from the sources available to him as the long-time leader of Freemasonry (1859-1891), Pike was able to trace the chronological growth and spread of the Mysteries over the face of the earth from ancient Babylon down to the present-day Masonic Order.”
God is the one who said it would work out that Judas would betray. He said it centuries before and He reiterated it as the Son of Man.
WHAT??? I'm a Southern Baptist for crying out loud! :) What in the world do you think I believe? :) For Southern Baptists, Baptism is commanded by the Bible as an obedience to God, a demonstration AND CELEBRATION of the completed act (by God) of salvation. It is a public testimony of faith in Christ, ideally performed soon after acceptance of Christ. It is not salvational at all, but is symbolic of the "believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour" (BFM) That's why we do it, and of the couple of hundred I have seen it has always been a wonderful experience for all involved.
“Even St. Ignatius, as early as 105 AD, speaks of only one true Church and he calls it catholic.”
That’s not quite true. Read 3 John where John speaks of the church as a local body and in fact one of its members, Diotrephes, won’t let John or other brothers in the church.
Personally, yes, but that's not a "proof." It's a conviction based on experience, and we know that personal experience can be a fallacy.
Appealing to "inner reality" as outer proof is like confusing dreams with wakefulness. It borders on pathology, even psychosis.
It is God's will that His words be sown (parable of the sower.) It is not His will to satisfy the demand for signs or wisdom (reason) - both of which are "proofs Funny that +Paul should re-write the history of God, who used signs and miracles to convince people He was really God!
But, apparently, even His apostles didn't fully believe until they saw and recognized the Resurrected Christ. Even though Peter said "Though art the Son of the living God," he still betrayed Him, and the rest scattered like a bunch of scared little rabbits (save for John).
And wasn't Paul alleged conversion on the way to Damascus a 'miracle' and a 'sign'?
It so easy to just cut out that part with which you disagree and find verses that support your view. Anyone can do that. It's self-serving, A-G, and that's why text-proofing is no proof at all. It all defaults to me-me-me, my experience, my inner knowledge, my reality...solipsism, self-worship, Gnosticism, maybe even worse.
Jeepers, kosta50, Christ made the blind to see and they couldn’t stop talking about what a miracle He did for them.
If they were so convincing, then why did Israel reject Christ? If Peter's shadow could cure the sick, why would the Church fail in Israel. If the Church was to fail in Israel, why did Christ commission his disciples not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans, but only tot he 12 tribes of Israel?
Why does Paul tell the Jews that they were obliged to preach to them first but now, seeing that they didn't hear the word, the apostles will turn to the Gentiles? (no kidding, where else?) What was the purpose of preaching to the Jews knowing they would not buy into it?
Passers-by demanded proofs of Christ
That's because people believe God is in control! They were applying human logic to God! They were judging God by human standards of control and human justice. No one could imagine that God is gentle and humble. The Reformed don't believe it to this day. They expect a partial tyrant, benevolent to some, and damning to others.
So then would you say that it is a man-made event, rather than a sacrament? Would it be like me wearing a crucifix - a man-made symbol of Christianity - rather than something significant in and of itself?
“No one could imagine that God is gentle and humble. The Reformed don’t believe it to this day.”
Even more amazing is there are some who can’t imagine that He is also a God of wrath and righteous anger and judgment who will consign His enemies to “outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
BD: That’s not quite true. Read 3 John where John speaks of the church as a local body and in fact one of its members, Diotrephes, won’t let John or other brothers in the church
You are confusing communion with jurisdiction. A bishop is the final authority in his chrurch(es). The Apostles were all of equal dignity and no one disciple lorded over others. But they were not equal in their tasks and responsibilities. Some were given to accomplish more than others.
A local church is not a "local" body of Christ. Every Church where the Eucharist is validly offered offers the fullness of faith under a local bishop. The Body of Christ is not truncated into body "parts."
Then there is a possibility that the bishop there was imitating evil rather than good. The church is made up of sinners, many of whom turned out to be heretics.
The catholic Church has always a been a communion based on orthodox faith. Those who shared the same faith with in communion with each other. The administration of the Churhc is a separate aspect, and is borne out of necessity to manage 1.5 billion (Catholic 1.2 billion, and Orthodox 300 million) spiritual needs of it believers.
Do not confuse the two.
Yeah, yeah, the angry frustrated God made in man's image...
The NT tells us that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Baptism is necessary for slavation.
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.