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.
Why are you a RC?
I am a Baptist. I was born an Episcopalian, but refused to be confirmed. I became a Baptist because of their emphasis on Scripture being the measure for all doctrine.
That phenomenon is not limited to the Catholic Church. Ultimately NOTHING happens that is not within the will of God, either by his permissive will or his perfect will. What is being bandied about on this thread is the idea that everything the Catholic Church ordains is the perfect will of God and it has the imprimatur of God stamped upon it. Priests are granted the authority of God because some other priest has granted it to him. God's will then is subject to the whims of men and somehow if a priest ordains something, then it can be said that God ordained it.
In a real sense what you have is not priestcraft, but witchcraft, where God is ordered around and made to assent to some priest's ritual ordination or command. God forgives sins because the priest forgives sins. God ordains a priest because a priest has ordained the priest. Bread becomes God because a Priest declares the bread to be God.
Is all this sillyness within the will of God. Yes, he permits us to follow our folly. But if we allow him to truly lead us, he will lead us away from folly and into his presence.
Where did your “Elders” get the authority they conferred on this ordinand?
From the same Person who gave the authority to the people at Antioch. Acts 13:1-4, “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost,....”
I started out as a Mormon. God led me out of there and after a journey which included the prayers of some Christian friends, I found the Lord (or the Lord found me) though the preaching ministry of Calvary Chapel. They too have a strong emphasis on teaching the Bible (cover to cover over and over).
While I have no particular compelling reason why I could not be a committed Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian or some other non-denominational sect, I have not felt led to leave where God has placed me.
As a general rule it is good manners to leave with the girl who drove you to the dance. (Being a Baptist you probably wouldn't know about that tradition -- or if you did you wouldn't admit it) :-)
How long and why will it remain a mystery to many how a humble soul can hear of Jesus, whether from a Catholic Priest, a Baptist Minister, an Episcopalian Priest, or a Mormon Missionary and that humble soul open up and trust Jesus to be Savior? It happens because of The Holy Spirit, not because of the traditions promoted by men. Traditions tend to reduce the opening of the door to the heart rather than open it wider, when the soul is first seeking The Truth to lead him/her. Perhaps that's why I like the term 'faither' instead of believer, because a faither is one in action, whereas believer is all too passive in nature, prone to doubt and reserved of action transformation of self by the Holy Spirit's influence.
There seems to be a tradition expressed by some of our Catholic posters that suggests that the Holy Spirit does not work independent of man or independent of the Catholic Priesthood. The tradition seems to be that unless a priest conjures up the Holy Spirit through some fancy elaborate ritual, the Holy Spirit is essentially powerless to do anything.
But Jesus chose Judas who committed the worst of crimes, does that mean He acted against God's will and was without the authority of God? Following your logic that would be the conclusion. That some men in any assembly (ecclesia--church) fall short of the Gospel doesn't mean that the assembly is godless.
The arguments being presented for apostolic succession are objective and scriptural, not subjective (i.e "look at the holiness or unholiness of this or that priest/pope, etc."). Judas was an Apostle; but Judas was not holy.
"Now it came to pass in those days, that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when day broke, He summoned His disciples; and from these He chose twelve (whom He also named Apostles)." (Lk. 6:12-13).
God bless...
Its the smoke pots, that’s what does it :>)
Jesus did not put Judas in charge of molesting Children. He chose Judas BECAUSE he knew that Judas would betray him. Jesus needed a betrayer in order that the prophecies would be fulfilled. Jesus chose him for that purpose.
By your logic these child molester Priests were placed there because Jesus wanted those children raped and molested. I think the better deduction is that Jesus allowed these people to be placed there in order that he could show the world the vacuity of the Catholic Priesthood.
~”It happens because of The Holy Spirit, not because of the traditions promoted by men. Traditions tend to reduce the opening of the door to the heart rather than open it wider, when the soul is first seeking The Truth to lead him/her.”~
Well put. It’s an amazing thing to behold every time; it’s one of the very few events that can happen to us that is so fundamentally soul-changing, and a real miracle in every case.
I am a firm believer that Peter jumped the gun when he decided they needed to promote someone to apostle. God already had Paul in mind.
Has anyone ever done a air sampling for carcinogens in the area around the smoke pots? What about second hand smoke pot smoke? What about "the children"?
What was the Church in 1400, 1300, 1200... 33 A.D.? Was it all witchcraft?
The Church from the beginning had hierarchy and succession. For example St. Irenaeus (d.202) in his Against Heresies wrote: “Those that wish to discern the truth may observe the apostolic tradition made manifest in every church throughout the world. We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles, and their successors down to our own day, who never taught, and never knew, absurdities such as these men produce. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught the perfect in private and in secret they would rather have committed them to those to whom the entrusted the churches. For they wished those men to be perfect and unblamable whom they left and their successors and to whom they handed over their office of authority....”
And what about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Did the Christian faithful have it wrong until Calvin, Luther, and company? St. Ignatius of Antioch (died for Christ in 110 A.D.) wrote of those who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: "Let us stand aloof from such heretics. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
That is the constant testimony of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church whose Creed has remained the same since the time of the Apostles.
“The arguments being presented for apostolic succession are objective and scriptural, not subjective”
No, it is a subjective interpretation of scripture; a reading back into the text a desired result in order to buttress a desired position. Nowhere in scripture is there a command or mandate for “apostolic succession”.
LOL!
Peter was always very impulsive.
“There is ‘bishopric succession’,”
I must have missed this in my limited study. Where do you find this in the scripture? I see in 1 Timothy and Titus where they are appointed in churches but there is no reference to succession. It looks like the method we use to elect Deacons/Elders in the churches.
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.