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's what I was saying. Are you agreeing wiht me or just repeating it?
As you know, but for the benefit of lurkers, they cannot say that honestly, for in the Apostolic theology Christ did NOT die for anyone's sins. For them, Christ's suffering and death, and resurrection, was only good to give man the possibility to decide for himself if he wanted to be saved. So in their theology, Christ finished nothing, He just handed the ball off to man and waited to see who gained enough yards to be saved.
I am saying that calvinism says all have a choice, and that even those disinclined toward you still have a choice.
Let me ask you this.
Could you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008?
So you can believe anything you want, as many gods as you want (i.e. LDS believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, three separate "Gods" but one in purpose!), as long as you throw in JESUS, you are saved?
Amazing! This is just getting more and more heretical...
Kosta, Jesus does not demand you have your doctrine right in order to be saved. He came to call SINNERS, not the righteous to repentance.
There is nothing at all heretical about that.
In fact, it would be the reverse that would border on heresy.
If that is your opinion, FK, the you have been deceived. You have not read anything regarding Orthodox doctrine as you claimed you did, because you could not say something so completely off base if you did. What you wrote is a cheap caricature of what Orthodoxy teaches.
I would ask you to substantiate your characterization with Orthodox sources (and please leave out any hetretics! We don't go by them).
That's a different kind of Calvinism you are preaching vis-avis other Calvinists on these threads (just how many "Calvinists" are there? Will the real Calvinists please stand up and be counted!).
Others tell me that everything is God's will, whether I choose God or Satan,and that everything has been predetermined, including my choice, before foundations of the world. So, how can Calvinism teach that we always have a choice?!?
Could you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008?
I could by I won't.
theatrics?
chiropractics?
Metritics?
Netretics?
So I googled it. And this is what I found:
wow..tutankhamun is inside the pedestal? i thought he was a minor pharaoh who wouldnt have much significance...its interesting how he was regarded so importanly in his time...afterall, ive heard later on..other pharaohs tried to "take away his name" from temple walls along with akhenaton, nefertiti, and so on because tutankhamun was related to them and egypt didnt want to be affiliated which such..hmm.."hetretics"
:>)
I don’t think you could. You are absolutely, totally DISINCLINED to do so.
And you won’t.
ADMIT IT!! LOL!
I think we have discussed this before. I don't have the references handy as I eat my sandwich, but I recall that God's will is at two levels....
First, God desires all men to be saved. God desires that men obey His commandments. These are God's will. Yet, we know they are not done. Thus, at some level, God condescends to man to allow Him a choice. Thus, God's will is that man have a will DESPITE His will that He is obeyed. This divine condescenion is seen at the foot of the cross as well as the words of the Bible.
Secondly, God's will in other things will assuredly happen. HIS elect are called. The universe was created. And so forth.
Sorry, this peanut butter is good, so my attention is diverted and I can't do better at this time. However, I think it is clear that God's will is at different levels.
Regards
They are not WILLING. They are given a choice and they reject it.
I agree. Thus, MEN are judged. IF man had no choice to choose, than God is judged for saying He desires all men to be saved but not give them the means to choose. I need not say that this would make God a liar.
Regards
Does God tell us in the bible that some men are going to be lost?
If so, then His foreknowledge tells Him that not all men will be saved. Therefore, when
Wait wait! I'm getting confused. I'm the Catholic here .... Still, an impressive array of citations. Who can argue with such a preponderance of evidence. And as to Cardinals Sinning, that's what we've been saying all along ....
But it's not just a matter of design. I am happy to interpret, to engage in haute vulgarization and do forth, but on a very derivative level. I WANT to be guided and corrected by other wiser and holier folk. I pester them, in fact, with requests for "inquisitions", and a lot of the stuff I have posted on FR I run by them for comment. (So far, they are not building fires in the church yard, but I DO tent to scope it out before I leave cover and walk in .....)
The fun part of the issue is
God wants an intimate and personal relationship with each of His children. I don't see how that could happen with such a barrier erected between God and you and me. One man's barrier is another mans gateway. Interestingly a major collection of koans in the Rinzai Zen tradition is called the Mumonkan, which can be construed as The Gateless Gate.
Okay, Mad Dawg, get a hold of yourself! What do you mean?
Struggling here ...
- A reason I could be a hospital chaplain was that I didn't have to be a nurse or a doc. That was taken care of, so I could tend to the patient in MY area of responsibility.
- I will never know what it is like to praise God in a beautiful solo (where "never" means, before I die. Who knows what I will know after I die?).
- My wife knows things about the Nativity I will never know. And yet nurses, docs, Sopranos, and mothers are always teaching me about God and His love. I can teach and have taught some clergy about the basic considerations in deadly force encounters, as well as the wound channel such encounters make in the soul. They teach me things I need to know to be a better LE chaplain (if I ever get back in that game ...)
That's what I mean about it's not seeming like a barrier to me. The diverse gifts of the Spirit benefit me, make me grateful, and evangelize me all over again. !
Here's where I do my Protestantism/mercantilism/nationalism rap, which is probably just foolishness ....
The Catholic Church in all the multifariousness and splendor of the Office of This and the Secretariat of That, and the Commission of the Other certainly gives the appearance of Byzantine (funnily enough) complexity). And looking at it in terms of power and political structure seems natural enough.
We post Hobbes- and Locke ians tend to view polities as the shaky result of a careful argument and negotiation. Our Constitution is a kind of a treaty.
And I'm all over this way of doing things politically. I don't generally like it when the other guy, holding firmly to his ax, says,"Aw, come on. Trust me. Put down your ax."
Um. No thanks. You put down yours, then we'll talk ...
But it was not always like that. I got a glimpse of another possibility when I realized that my [late] Mom, being a Limey, really LOVED the Queen.
So when I consider the Holy Father ("Pope" being a kind of informal title) I have that momentary gasp of "Jeez! Ratty could do ANYTHING!" But I deal with that, as I've said before, by remembering that the Church is what it is not because of the guys in dresses, but because of God's providential guidance. And the very risk of allowing the guys in dresses so much authority is a spur and challenge to greater faith and trust.
That he COULD, but hasn't, helps me to put my confidence in the Lord's pledge to be with us to the end of the age.
This is not meant to persuade so much as to depict how it looks from here and how that appearance integrates with the whole ball of wax.
For the sake of clarity, you still have not corrected your comment that Zwingli was an Anabaptist. It should read along the following lines...
"Grebel, a student of Zwingli (who always believed in infant baptism and never wavered) departed from the reformed faith and gathered followers to himself who later became known as Anabaptists who believed in rebaptism as adults.
Grebel rebaptized a former Catholic priest, Georg Blaurock, and in doing so, implied Blaurock's infant baptism was invalid, an act that was seen as blasphemy. Grebel and his followers then took off for Moravia and southern Germany to escape persecution.
It should also be mentioned that a major tenet of the Anabaptists was pacifism.
Gee, I wonder who would benefit by former Reformers becoming pacifists?
x>Rom 10:13 - for whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved
You are not asnwering(sic) the question: does this include the LDS, or any sect, dneomination(sic), cult, whatever, who call on Christ?
6,884 posted on 09/21/2007 9:36:19 AM MDT by kosta50
When I was called by the Ru'ach Hakodesh, I was not called to any denomination. I was called to the Word of G-d. In Christianity, I realized Paganism was introduced in the second century The Reformation corrected many things in Christianity, but much of the Paganism was retained wholesale. I know that the same Elohim who inspired the Torah also inspired the New Covenant If I were to identify myself, it would be found closest in the Plymouth Brethren. In my search for salvation, I researched all the Eastern religions,
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
I did not find a Loving God in any of them.
and third century and Paganism was codified into Christianity in the fourth century and beyond.
Anti-Semitism and rejection of the Torah accompanied the Paganism.
as spelled out in Jeremiah 31:31 and brought to all mankind in the form of Yah'shua HaMashiach.
Californians.
Amen, x! Dead is dead.
It's this very fact that makes God's unmerited gift of grace so much more beautiful and generous.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" -- Ephesians 2:1;4-5"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins...
Ah yes.
You are correct. Thank you - it was my omission.
Oh, I stopped taking most Catholic-on-Protestant apologetics seriously a long time ago. They're about as well-researched and fact-filled as a David Cloud tract.
I pray that the Jedi do.
How DO you folks keep everything straight?
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.