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.
If you wander on over to Rev 20: or, just for kicks, Matt 25:
31
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37
Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
18 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Ain’t nuttin’ here about the elect. A whole lotta sumptin’ about following His commandments.
What’s the difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish wake?
***A slave does not have free will; only a servant does. ***
MY very point. A slave has no free will, and Jesus said whoever sins is a SLAVE, therfore, anyone still in their sin HAS NO FREE WILL. But once Jesus has set you free, you have the free will to obey or not obey. Until then, you are a slave to sin. John 8:34 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
***they are the pinnacle of His creation.***
You keep saying that, but it no where says that in the Bible. We were made lower than the angels.
Only one dead body? I don’t know :>)
One less drunk!!!!
I’ll drink to that :>)
There is a difference between being a slave to the lusts of the flesh - a term, mind you, that we all understand to be merely a metaphor - and being a robot slave to predetermined existence. We have all experienced something that we really really like to do very much, such as smoking too much or drinking too much or slamming FR posters too much (sorry strike that) and we call that addiction, or a slave to the lusts of the flesh. Which, with willpower, we can overcome.
Being a robot slave in a predestined universe is not the same by a long shot. That is true slavery; where we cannot do what we will. If Jesus sets us free, then we have the ability to reject Him. If we have the ability to reject Him, then we are not of the elect and will not go to Heaven. It does not logically follow.
Mankind is so the pillar of God’s creation. He created us last (actually woman was last - that’s why they look better than us). I know, we need Biblical proof. Et voila - see folks, I do include St. Paul:
1 Cor. 6:1-8
1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?
5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren,
6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
It seems to me that the Apostle Paul is saying that we will judge the world and the angels by our having been continuously “faithful” and “obedient” to God’s law (Bible) 1st Cor. 6:1 while we lived here on the “earth”. In other words, God is going to use the saints as a “testimony” against those who were “disobedient” to His Word and to further establish the fact that His Word and Promises are TRUE.
If we can judge angels, aren’t we going to be greater than they at the point where we judge them?
***He created us last (actually woman was last - that’s why they look better than us). ***
Finally, something we can agree on. :>)
We will judge the angels, once we are sanctified in heaven. On earth, we are still sinners and judge to know one.
You seem to have this big problem with God being in charge of everything. I find it a comfort that God has control of my life, and my salvation. It’s not up to me, it’s up to God. Whew :>)
Irishtenor: You keep saying that, but it no where says that in the Bible. We were made lower than the angels
Did God create angels in His image and likeness? Did he give them dominion? Are the angels going to judge the saints or the saints the angels?
I'm afraid the analogy does not work. For one thing we do not say that everything we do is "from" God. I do not sit here idle and then receive an instruction from God to go sin, and then do it. It doesn't work like that. Likewise the Palm Pilot analogy doesn't work because if you leave it alone it just sits there and does nothing. If God leaves us alone, we actively sin.
Try reading the Bible, even the parts you don’t believe in. It’s somewhere in Psalms where it says that God made man a little lower than the angels.
If everything is predetermined and God is completely directing you, then aren’t you as a Palm Pilot program?
How does it work? How does it differ from a Palm Pilot program? And remember that we have as much access to Calvin’s works as you do!!!!
Well, here’s the problem.
If you absolve yourself of any responsibility for your life, then that goes against Rev 20 as well as Matt 25.
If you say that God is responsible, then how do you account for the Judgements as to what you have done? I understand that there is a relief that somebody else is responsible for what you’ve done, but Calvin doesn’t have the Gospel proof, never mind the NT proof.
The “elect” don’t get a pass. You, as well as me, have to stand in front of the Lamb and answer for our lives. We have to answer for our talents. We have to answer for whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, read to the blind, visited those in prison, counselled the Calvinists, and redeemed the Reformed. If not, we’re going to be be cast into hellfire forever.
I just hope that He judges my little forays into FR to be worth something.
***...counselled the Calvinists, and redeemed the Reformed. If not, we’re going to be be cast into hellfire forever.***
Take lots of icewater.
All my sins are ALREADY forgiven. All of them, including the ones I do tomorrow and next year. Jesus paid it all. I do not own my salvation, Jesus does. And none that the Father gives to the Son will be lost. Jesus is the redeemer, and he has my salvation in his hands. That is why I love him so much. You love your church, because that is where your salvation lies. I love Jesus, because he has my salvation already. He will stand with me on the Judgement day and all my sins will have been forgiven. No payment required, because Jesus already paid for my sins.
Then how do you explain Rev 20 and Matt 25?
I admit we’ve got our hands full with you lot!!!!
But if, and this is only if, we bow to the Gospels as the Word of God Almighty, and follow all of their precepts, and we view the NT through the prism of the Gospels and the OT through the prism of the New, and follow them as well as we humanly can, then, and only then can we possibly stand in front of the Lamb, with the Book before him, and aided by the Blood that He shed for us, can we look at Him and ask for His Judgement to allow us into everlasting life with Him.
Hopefully, Heaven has got the real Irish Guinness in quantities that this hemachromatosis sufferer can tolerate. Icewater is what you put your strained ankle into.
I give you scriptures and my theology is built on the totality of God's inspired word. Scriptures should be interpreted through other scriptures, rather than anyone declaring that favored sections are right and disfavored sections are wrong. Jesus quotes from OT scriptures all the time, and affirms their truth. Yet, some people are unhappy when we do the same thing. :)
It is not the Catholics that do not adhere to the instructions of Christ. [Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18]
But those instructions must first go through layers of interpretation that lead to a very predictable result. First, the binding and loosening verses must be interpreted to transfer a certain measure of supernatural powers from God. THEN, the further interpretation must be made that these powers are transferable from person to person, at the will of the Church. With God's powers come many possibilities.
***But if, and this is only if, we bow to the Gospels as the Word of God Almighty, ***
I see it as the BIBLE as the word of God. Why discount the OT and most of the NT?
If you ONLY follow the gospels, why even think about Revelation?
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.