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.
Still don’t see the word “Christian” in that Orthodox word....one would think that they’re trying to highlight what is their style and background. I’m sure that not what “Lutheran” communicates to American churchgoers, what with them all being ignorant defectives and all. /sarc.
We have the complte true revealed WORD revealed by GOD, and yes that is of great importance, and it’s especially important to defend it from wolves trying to steal away the flock.
Shouldn’t your tag line simply be “Christianity, proclaiming the truth since AD 33”?
Love the Lord with all your heart and love one another.
How many atheists are following our conversations and laughing at our meanness to one another?
I know who my Savior is. His Good News is all I can teach - that He is the Son of God and one with God, born of a virgin who died without sin and arose on the 3rd day so that any of us who believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.
No, because as of 1054 there’s been more and more groups proclaiming contrary to the revealed Truth.
I think Lutheran pretty well communicates that Martin Luther, apostate Catholic priest, and law school dropout, received scripture whole and complete sent through time by the apostles and therefore get’s top billiong on all signage.
ROTFLOL! (and gasping for air...:>)
Sometimes, you look at some of the positions taken on this forum and you just cannot help laughing out loud at what is so obvious that gets ignored.
Please tell me how your comment in any way makes a positive contribution to this conversation.
You’ve lost this argument, K, time to move on.
There aren’t too many folks who think that you go to MacDonald’s to eat the meat of a Scottish family named MacDonalds. They know that they sell beef hamburgers there.
It’s just a plumb silly argument on your part.
These conversations are breaking my heart. I see love answered by meanness, and the Good News is secondary to the sign out front. I would love to see more posts like Alamo Girl’s with the Gospel and more stories of ministry to fellow believers like xzins. Less personal acrimony, more peace of Christ.
Thankfully, I’m going to work now and won’t be able to follow any more.
You seem to be glossing over the fact that, at least in the case of the Reformed Protestant churches, they view themselves as the continuation of Christ's church on Earth in the face of the institutional apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church. They recognize the prior 1500 years of church history as extremely relevant and valuable (unlike groups such as the Restorationists who wanted to discard the previous centuries of Christian history and all its lessons learned). OTOH, the Roman Catholic view of the nature of the visible, institutional church is self-referential and self-reinforcing.
When it comes down to it, the claim to apostolic succession is no more valid or meaningful than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees of "We have Abraham as our father!"
no seriously what does LUTHERAN inspire for you? LUTHERAN on that sign is bigger than the entire sign in front of the Orthodox church and FIRST dwarfs even that. what is the purpose of those words?
Given St John’s contribution of multiple books to the Bible it’s no suprise to find his name popping up btw.
Thank you, HD, for your contribution. It’s clearly spoken out of love for Christ.
While I have no difficulty with debating doctrine, I do not think that doctrinal difference with other groups in the historic Christian tradition means that those groups are other than Christian.
I reject such an expression of hyper-denominationalism.
For me, the meat in this article are the 3 points demonstrating the weakness of the apostolic/human lineage position.
They are:
1. A human lineage argument is itself illegitimate
2. Other churches have the same claim
3. The human lineage presented is itself historically suspect
Nice guilt-by-association fallacy. Not even a remotely workable comparison.
Unfortunately for you, there is plenty of historical support for the fact that the Reformation was just that...a reform. It was returning the people of God to the historic, Biblical faith. If you take the time to read the works of the Reformers you will find that they draw heavily from the works of those in the church who came before them.
There is no historical evidence that the Bible was the complete encyclopedia of the faith, before archeaology was as advanced as it is today it was possible to run around saying that reformers practiced ‘real Christianity’ however the more we uncover the more we find Christians practicing identically to how the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, and in most places Catholics do today.
Excellent point. And what was Jesus' reponse?
(Matthew 3:9 KJV) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
God has raised up stones in all corners of the earth. There is no "Apostolic Succession". There were 12 apostles. They are the foundation stones. The rest of us are simply building blocks raised up by Christ.
Thanks for the excellent analogy Fru. Sometimes God blesses you with flashes of brilliance.
Sometimes???
I've found that Fru is ALWAYS an absolutely formidable debater.
Yes he is a most formidable debater, but unlike you and me, Fru is not ALWAYS right. :-)
Well...you DO have a point.
(His pappy's no slouch either.:>)
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.