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.
Of course I agree. That is not the question. The question is: which human beings are following the Spirit such that what they believe and teach most accurately conforms to the whole of the Apostle's doctrine/teaching?
-A8
Php 4:3 - Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Clement had been a companion of Paul and the Corinthians were familiar with him through the word of Paul as a man of faith. Clement was a Roman in Philippi, and he had the commendation of Paul, so it is no wonder that the Corinthian church founded by Paul would seek the advice of a man with Pauline approval. Philippi sent help via Epaphroditus while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, so the pattern of appealing to what was Pauline was evident in the churches Paul had founded. So with the Corinthians. It would be natural to inquire of a trusted friend of Paul for advice.
-A8
So you think this verse refers to your church's un-Biblical traditions and you use this verse to justify the other scriptures you posted...
In this verse the traditions which have been taught and the written epistles are identical...They are two in the same...
Think about it...Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught.
Do you suppose that if one group read the epistles that they were to stand fast in their beliefs, and another group heard the word of the traditions that were differnt than the written epistle, they were to stand fast in what they heard???
Talking to us in his written epistle Paul is saying that whoever heard the written epistle is to believe that, but if you also, or only heard the unwritten tradition, to believe that as well, or instead???
Sorry...Some churches had copies of the written epistles and others that didn't, heard the epistles spoken word for word from the written source...
And these epistles, spoken or written, became the tradition over the years of what Paul was preaching and teaching...Paul's tradition was his epistles, the bible...Your traditions are not the Bible, but the tradition of men...Paul talks about that as well...
The word in Titus 1:5 which is translated as "priest" (or as you would have it, as "elder") is in the Greek presbuteros. While it does mean "elder" in Greek, it was rendered as presbyter in Latin, which became priester in German and finally priest in English. Thus priest is just the English rendering of the Greek presbuteros and is a proper translation.
The difficulty in English is that in Catholic Europe the only experience that anyone had of a sacrificial temple priesthood was that that of the Catholic priest/presbyter at the Mass. Thus this term, "priest", came to be used for all such temple officials.
When we turn the to word "priest" in 1 Peter 2:5 we find that the Greek word is hieratenma, a "sacrficial temple priesthood". St. Jerome rendered this in Latin by sacerdotium. Unfortunately in English we have only one term, "priest", to translate both "presbyter priest" and "sacrificial temple priest".
This points to a serious flaw in the theory of sola scriptura. Few layman will have the proper training to even attempt to try to interpret the Bible on their own. Thus they must rely on the skill and authority of others. In essence, all that Protestantism has done is move the authority of Biblical interpretation from the episcopacy established by Jesus Christ to self-proclaimed academics. After 500, Protestantism is just as dependent on its own tradition as Catholicism.
But to return to the original subject, the Bible itself shows that our Lord established the authority of the Apostles which they then continued in the episcopacy through the laying on of hands. Whatever else the Protestants might claim, they do not posses this Christ established Biblical office from which they separated themselves when they left the Catholic Church.
But John says differently...
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Jeepers, some of us are sent as "sheep amongst the wolves" (Matt 10:16) - out in the open field, in the wolves' sector - facing malicious intent without the comfort of either other sheep or pens.
But that is a very great blessing! Amongst the wolves, the sheep relies only on the Shepherd. And that is exactly the way it is supposed to be, pens and other sheep notwithstanding.
And I thank God for the sheep pens because sanctification is a walk. It takes time to learn to love Him and trust Him enough to go through a gate following His lead - much less into the open field, much less into the company of wolves.
Do you really think it is a cosmic accident that you find yourself a Catholic at this point in your life?
There is either something in the Catholic sheep pen for you to learn or to do. And if He wants to lead you into another pen or out in the open field or amongst wolves, He'll call your name.
Follow Him.
Doesn't that lie at the heart of the Catholic reverence for Mary?
Which human beings are following the Spirit such that what they believe and teach most accurately conforms to the whole of the Apostle's doctrine/teaching?
-A8
And all the believers are little a "right" and a little "wrong," correct? Or are we all "right" and all those differences we proclaim are "nonessential?"
The error, imo, of the Protestant/Baptist world is that the focus is on the individual believer, who claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit but in truth relies entirely on his or her personal interpretation of the Bible and creates an entirely private theology and calls it "true."
It appears to be narcissism at its very worst. I believe it is arrogance and self-deception founded on "inner knowledge" (an extreme form of esoteric thinking) which, when expressed outwardly, shows a rainbow of beliefs, all different from each other, some more, others less so. Protestantism/Baptism thus appears to be thoroughly gnostic, cleverly disguised as it may be, but gnostic nonetheless.
Thus, when some Protestant tells me that some Mormons are "true" Christians because they accept Christ as their Savior, and ignores the fact that Mormons deny Triune God, that they are a polytheistic (pagan) cult using only Christian nomenclature for its gods, believing in three different "gods" and claiming that "God the Father" used to be a man, and that Christ's "brother" is none other than Satan, the nature of heresy becomes evident.
Obviously the Christ they claim is not the Christian God, yet some Protestants will embrace them as "true" believers, just because they claim "Christ" as their savior. Two wrongs don't make it right.
The Church is not "the people" who believe whatever they want. Only Satan would want us to believe that there is no one true Church, and that everyone's private opinion is true faith.
If it is the proper translation, as you claim, then why is the Greek "presbyteros" always translated "presbyters" [not "priests"] everywhere that it appears in my Catholic Bible??? Were those Catholic Bible scholars in error???
First thing you have to do is get the correct translation...The right translation says elders...Not priests...And how do we know this is so??? Because even your own Catholic bible says:
1Pe 2:5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
We are all a holy priesthood...Your very own Catholic bible confirms this...Jerome's translation...
So you can't have priests that are set apart from the priesthood...Wouldn't make sense...
So, there is no such thing as a church constitution that has priests...
The Apostles dind't walk around with the Christian bible in their hands. They wrote the New Testament later on. So, what keys were they using then?
The NT says nothing of using the Scriptures as the key to heaven, but it says "whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosen shall be loosened in heaven..."
which begs the question of how exacly humans are supposed to be able to baptise with the Holy Spirit since they are not mightier than John the Baptist and are no more fit to touch Christ shoes...
Just the preference of the translator. "Presbyter" is an acceptable translation. Indeed, this is the word that is used in Latin. "Priest", the word that is used in the Douay-Rheims Bible, is just the English rendering of the Latin presbyter. Whatever you call this particular office, priest/presbyter/elder, it continues to exist in the Catholic Church and not among the Protestants.
Presbuteros means "elder." The Greek word for a priests is ierei. A bishops os episkopos. In the early Church, the ordained ministers were called "elders." They performed the same functions that are performed by priests.
Priests do not appear until the second century because until then the Christian communities were not large enough to require additional clergy. A priest is a bishop's deputy. A deacon is a priest's assistant. These are the only three ordained levels in the Church, regardless what you call them.
Sheep pens are not the Living Word of God - the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, is.
Sheep pens fall into disrepair and have to be patched now and again. Other sheep seem to replace the boards with bricks, build roofs or sound proof the pens so other sheep or even the Shepherd won't bother them. Others build all kinds of silly niceties within the pen or pens within pens. The sheep yell at each other between the pens arguing over who has the best pen.
I will not play that game - I am following the Shepherd. Period.
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.