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.
That is a given D-fender. Besides, the Council of Orange was a local council and not binding on the whole Church. Using it as if it were an Ecumenical Council is deceiving, especially when some of the Protestants have been specifically told that such local councils are not universally binding.
I am glad you brought this up. My views on this are a little "un-orthodox" but they are my views, so don't be going on bashing the EO Church for my views.
The Passover lamb is killed not for the atonement of sins but out of gratitude for deliverance from captivity and death. It has nothing to do with forgiveness of assumption of sins. The Passover lamb is slain and eaten as a thanksgiving meal, not a sacrifice offered to God in the Temple.
Here we have the first problem: by saying "Eat, this is my Body..." Christ makes Himself to be the Passover Lamb, a thanksgiving meal, not a sacrifice (sacrifices were ritually killed on the altar and burned as an offering to God).
The blood of the lamb was used not to wash away the sins, but as a "marker" on the doors in order for the Spirit (the giver of life!) , on a first-born human and animal killing spree, to "know" [sic] the inhabitants were Hebrews so as not to kill their firstborn (as if God needs "markers," LOL!).
Thus, the blood was salvific in this sense, but it is not consumed. Here is where the problem arises—again: Christ says "Drink, this is the Cup of my Blood..." yet Jewish Kosher Laws strictly prohibit consumption of any kind of blood!
Is this breaking of the Law? So, not only is consuming the blood of the lamb not in keeping with the Passover tradition, but it raises the issue of breaking Kosher laws.
Finally, just around this time of the year, about six months after the Passover, the Jews atone for their sins (Yom Kippur). The animal which takes on our sins in this ritual feast is a goat, not a lamb!More importantly, the goat is not ritualistically sacrificed and offered as burnt offerings, nor is it simply killed! There is no blood involved.
The Jews place their hands on the head of a goat (magically "transferring" their sins on to the poor animal) and the goat is then set free to run away with their sins! And they tell me Jews are not pagans!
So, you see, the whole story is somewhat mixed-up. Add to this the fact that the festival of the palms (Sukkot) does not take place around Passover (March/April), but around October, and we have to wonder where did the Palm Sunday come from, since it is unknown as a Jewish feast.
So, when you ask me if I am saying Jesus is not “The Lamb of God," I am telling you it's not that clear-cut. There are elements that seem to support that notion, but there are elements that clearly do not.
Very good, Kosta!
I could probably use a kevlar vest and helmet...I can feel it comin'
“I could probably use a kevlar vest and helmet...I can feel it comin’”
Well, that’s what you get for hanging around non-Caucus threads...but I’ve got your back at least for a little while, my Balkan Mountain Bandit Brother!
I saw a protestant tract once that traced it's roots back to the Montanists. I kid you not.
Stay frosty! :)
This may be of some interest here...
The scapegoat and Azazel. There is some debate as to the correct translation for the word `aza’zel (Strong #05799). Most translations render this word “scapegoat,” from the combination of the words `ez, “goat” (Strong #05795) and ‘azal, “to go away” (Strong #235). In Jewish tradition, however, Azazel was a fallen angel who was judged by God for his wickedness in leading other fallen angels and humans into sin. A record of this judgement is in the apocryphal/pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch, in a passage that fleshes out the events of Genesis 6. [A, E] There are no capital letters in Hebrew, so there is no indication from the text as to whether the word `aza’zel is a proper name or not, so there is speculation as to which meaning was intended. Is it possible that both meanings are important? We will explore both meanings for the purpose of fleshing out the significance of the scapegoat.
What does the idea of scapegoat, or sending away this goat as a substitute for sin mean?
Before we explore what significance, if any, is attached to the name “Azazel,” we should do a little background in 1 Enoch. The book was written likely by several authors in the second century BC, so it clearly postdates Leviticus 16 in its written form. However, Jude, the half-brother of Yeshua, quotes a portion of it in his epistle as prophecy, attributing this prophecy to Enoch. (See Jude 14-15.) By crediting this prophecy to Enoch, it appears that the book was known at least in oral tradition since Enoch’s day. In my opinion, this book carries some degree of weight, but at the very least, and most importantly for our study here, it provides insight into the Hebrew mind and traditions in Biblical times. The only question that remains is whether or not Azazel went by another name before the Book of Enoch was written. Let’s assume for now that it was the same. What connection and significance might Azazel have to the scapegoat? In the book of Enoch, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, four archangels bring this charge to Yahuwah,
“’Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn.” (1 Enoch 9:6b-7a)
“And again the Lord said to Raphael ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.’” (1 Enoch 10:4b-9a, underline added)
There are two things to note here. One aspect of sending the scapegoat away into the wilderness “for Azazel” was that it was going to the Abyss in which Azazel was cast. The other aspect is sin. What was placed on the scapegoat, and how does that relate to Azazel?
Why did Christ die on the cross? What purpose did it serve?
I think you’re a bit off base with the purpose of both the Passover Lamb and the offering of a Lamb in general.
The Lamb was intercessory, not for thanksgiving. The blood of the Lamb interceded for me with God.
That is why its says, “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
The Lamb interceded. Certainly, I’m thankful for that, but the purpose of the blood was not so that I’d be thankful. The purpose of the blood was to set up a sign of mercy between me & my sin and God.
FWIW, I don't think our friend kosta believes that the Passover was a real event.
Yes indeed! :
Rom 8:28 : And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
----------
Whether the "punishment" is before or after we shuffle off the moral coil is another issue, but the purpose of divine chastening of the saints is for their good.
Amen. Very well put. :)
I was hoping the Buggs would know we really wanted him in this conversation
Thank you so much for letting us know!
You know what the Bible says...loving those who love you is no effort...or something to that effect. Besides, they love me here. :)
Thanks. Interesting take on scapegoat.
He died so that we may be free from the bondage (of death). It was a deliverance from death to life. Ergo, the Pascha (Passover), which the West calls by a pagan name Easter.
Christ gave His life to the devil in exchange (ransom), not because He owed the devil but because He willed it out of love for humanity. As St. John Chrysostom said more than 16 centuries ago "death expected Man, and received God." Having no power over God, death could not keep Him and was defeated, while mankind was given a chance to be redeemed through the grace of God by submitting to, following and imitating Christ.
Now, before you all jump on me, this is Orthodox doctrine, as old as the Eastern Church (just about 2 millennia) perhaps not stated eloqunetly, but in a nutshell.
His Name is also Alpha and Omega.
Time is part of the Creation - not a restriction on the Creator.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
"Timeless" is a more appropriate word/concept for meditating on the Name "I AM" of the Creator of time and space.
First Cause and Final Cause - God's Name is Alpha and Omega - applies to the whole Creation in which time, including eternity, is but a part. IOW, Final Cause is not the end point on a timeline.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. – Revelation 1:11
I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. – Revelation 1:18
To God be the glory!
Passover lamb is Passover lamb. There is no other kind in Judaism. If Christ was compared to the Passover lamb then He was a thanksgiving meal.
But you are ignoring the abomination (in Judaism) of eating flesh and especially drinking blood (of any species).
That is why its says, “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
There is no such lamb in Judaism. Only a goat. And that goat is not a "Passover" goat but a scapegoat (Yom Kippur). Lambs do not atone for man's sins in Judaism, goats do.
You are not offering any explanations as to why are all these unusual and, for Judaism, alien and repulsive things being said. What they hear is blasphemy: cannibalism, and distortion/profaning of the Exodus.
The Lamb interceded. Certainly, I’m thankful for that, but the purpose of the blood was not so that I’d be thankful
In this particular case (Passover), the blood was merely a marker. The lamb who died for Passover saved the Jews from the wrath of God's Spirit, or so the story goes. So it was the lamb's blood that led to the deliverance of the Hebrews from captivity. The symbolism of Christ's blood delivering Christians from the captivity of death is directly related, but as far as Judaism is concerned (and at that time there were no Gentile Christians), the story is froth with incompatible practices and sayings.
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.