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.
In Calvinism, the Good guys kidnap the bad guys and turn them into good guys. It is the exact opposite.
LOL!!! Exactly right.
Are you saying that the Calvinists become an equal of the Holy Spirit? You haven’t been talking to the Mormons have you? :)
No one can take them out of His hand. No.
But they can freely walk out if they so desire. Unless they’re preprogrammed sheep, I guess. :)
No, what FK was saying is that under our scenario all men are already going to hell and that God rescues some of us from that situation. It's all God, none of us.
Yes, I see.
Makes you wonder though, what’s the point. God could have stopped with the good 2/3 of the angels and not had to have Jesus go through His Passion at all. Would have been much neater. And we wouldn’t be using our free will to argue about, well, our free will and its place in His universe.
Really? What happens to sheep when they stray?
How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. (Matthew 18:12-14 KJV)
Sorry Mark, you may not like it, but if you are one of his sheep, you will not get far should you "so desire" to "freely walk" out of his hand.
So tell me Mark, do you believe that you are one of Christ's sheep?
If so, what is the probability (based on scripture) that you can freely walk out of his hand and he will not seek you out and find you and carry you back into the fold?
Prodigal Son - His father’s love, however he suppressed it, was always known to him.
The Father - His love for his son never left him.
He doesn’t let go of his own.
There is nothing “in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. “
(and if I’m part of creation, then that includes me. If I made myself, then that excludes me.)
The question was, "Are we Christians?"
And you still haven't given us any reason why you would deny Forestkeeper, Alamo-girl, 1000silverlings or myself the name of Christian.
Please give us the "non Christian views" you mentioned as reasons for labeling Forest Keeper, Alamo-Girl, 1000silverlings and myself as non-Christians.
The shepherd lived with the sheep, ate with them, slept with them blocking the doorway to the sheep fold,which was made of stones and if a lion attacked, gave his life for them.
Since Christians follow the Good Shepherd and are completely dependant upon God for all of their needs, and do not go their own way like goats, we know that we are sheep.We accept that our good shepherd gave his life for us.
Thank you. That's beautiful.
Let’s take a closer look at this verse.
“And if so be that he find it...”
If.
It doesn’t say that he definitely finds it, just that he tries. If we are bound and determined to deny God, then we can. God wants us to be with Him, agreed.
We just differ on the extent of control that God exerts. Forced praise, forced allegiance, forced worship is nothing. If you love something, set it free, right?
I believe that I am one of His sheep. I do believe as well that I can deny Christ and leave His fold. I’ve seen a few people that, externally anyway, appeared to me to be the very model of a saved Christian, yet, after harsh circumstances or ill use, have hardened their hearts and left the Church and Christ.
Yet, it was up to the son to repent. The father never stopped loving his son; yet it was up to the son to come back.
Both conditions must be in force. But, under a Reformed parable, would the father not have gone out and forced the son back home?
Are you suggesting that Jesus can't find some of his sheep?
Do you think that if Jesus actually went looking for a lost sheep that he could not find it?
The sheep have no choice in whether or not they are brought back to the fold. If Jesus finds them, he carries them back. He doesn't ask them if they want to come back. He picks them up, and He puts them on his shoulders and He carries them back to the fold. He loses none of those whom his Father has given him.
What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. (Luke 15:4-5 KJV)
Now Mark, do you believe that you are one of Jesus sheep?
Actually, I did.
Gnosticism and Marcionism are at the core of Calvinism.
Many of the new non denominational churches have a healthy dose of Montanism.
And the Protestant Reformation is based in part upon the ideas of Novatian.
So, to the question of being non Christian, well, at what point does heresy become non Christian?
Well no they can't. He guards them jealously. They are a gift from His Father. I learned in Sunday school that when a sheep, not a goat, was prone to wandering, the shepherd broke its leg and then until the leg healed, the good shepherd carried the thing around, even in his bosom. The resulting closeness over the weeks caused the sheep to bond with his shepherd and after the leg was healed, he wandered no more.
Actually, according to your definition, Marcionism would be more in line with those who reject the teachings of the Old Testament about God. That sounds closer to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Lotsa verse out there. If Matthew doesn’t work, we may seek out Luke. :)
I believe that I am one of His sheep; and I hope and pray that on those occasions that I stray that He may help me to find the Via again.
The way that I’d read these verses is that Jesus is indicating that the lamb should or ought to or usually is wanting to return. Especially when you read further about the Prodigal son. It is all sequential and really part of the same parable. Read the verses:
13
After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation.
14
When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need.
15
So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine.
16
And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any.
17
Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.
18
I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
19
I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’
20
So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.
21
His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’
The son repented. First repentence, then return to the fold. The father always loved his son. God always loves us. He makes it possible for us to come back. The shepherd leaves the flock to find the lost sheep and enables it to come back. Footsteps in the sand, as it were.
God does not reject us; it is up to us to accept or reject Him. The Prodigal Son is strong evidence for Catholic theology.
I'm not doing your work for you, Mark. You said Alamo-girl, 1000silverlings, Forest Keeper and myself held "non Christian" beliefs.
What specifically are those "non Christian" beliefs, because none of us believes in "Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism nor in Novatian"?
What beliefs do we hold that you have labeled as "non Christian?"
How about semi-Marcionism?
The part about throwing out the NT except Paul, and grudgingly, Luke.
AMEN!
Really?
I’ve never heard of such a thing. What if there was a bunch of them?
Snopes agrees with the story. Fascinating.
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.