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.
But is that out of love or some other prompting?
Romans 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
It doesn't mean that all men will be spiritually reborn, but that a new creation is coming with Christ and the firstfruits leading the way
No, I will never eat it, but thanks
Yes, I was walking on air for a week.
Hey, don’t forget me in all this. :>)
An honor, according to the words of Christ. 8~)
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. " -- Matthew 5:11
Aw shucks, twern’t nuthin’.
Then what happened in the Garden of Eden? Oh, wait, in the Reformed world, a cruel God who engineers man's Fall and suffering is really a loving Sovereign.
What effort is there for God to persevere? Obviously, it's no effort on our part. God is the one who does everything and we just enjoy the ride! Protestant God works for Christians rather than the other way around. Protestants just sit and get waited on by God! They don't have move a finger. God takes care of everything for them.
Let me get this straight: those who are given to Him (by Him!) are just "darn" lucky. And those who are not are just darn "unlucky." Too bad, so sad. The absurdity and insult leveled at a loving God by such theology is unspeakable.
If you morn the loss, then you love the world more than God, right?
Well, it appears that you are starting to get the idea.
Do you not experience joy in knowing that God is directing your steps? Does it not give you comfort to know that your salvation is not dependent upon what you do, but on what Christ has done and will do for you?
What percentage of Christ's sheep will be lost? Are you one of Christ's sheep?
I am sorry, but your assertion was that his death a blessing because of suffering. If someone is not suiffering, then no one calls death a blesisng. Early Christians considered it a privilege to suffer and die like the Lord (on the cross). If we are also faith-filled, like they were, then something is amiss.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted
There is a time for everything in its season
Ecc3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
P-Marlowe: Well, it appears that you are starting to get the idea
No, it simply shows that I know what the Reformed theology teaches. God doesn't wait on us, as the Reformed theology suggests. God made an offer to all mankind. Now it's up to us to imitate Christ and be saved, working out our own salvation through Him (cf Phil 2:12).
Do you not experience joy in knowing that God is directing your steps?
I experience joy in knowing that God loved us so much that suffered and died for us so that we may imitate Him and be saved through Him.
It is a humbling joy, not a boastful one. Not a joy of a robot who just sits and does whatever the operator tells it to do.
Actually, St. Luke says "will laugh." Those who mourn shall be comforted in their faith so as to not mourn but laugh.
If you read the Beatitudes to the end you will find that those who suffer, mourn, the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, the peacemakers, have reason to "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven." (Mat 5:12)
As many as there are known to God who will leave Him and worship someone else.
He came back on his own. The father did not force him.
And what was God doing calling Adam "where are you?" in the Garden of Eden? Did He not know where Adam was and what he was doing? Of course He did. So was it just a game?
Tell me, P-Marlowe, does Jesus not know when one of His sheep is going to go astray? And if He knows, as we believe, then why is there even a chance of one going astray? Just so that God can leave everyone else and go after the one who is lost?
Does Christ enjoy hunting down the apostate sheep? Does Christ intentionally let some sheep fall away so that he can go and "find" them? It's absurd. Reformed forced love theology is absurd. God is not playing games. ;
***Reformed forced love theology is absurd.***
We love God because he first loved us. How is that forced?
Judaic interpretation, HD. Sorry. By that "logic" one would intentionally let his children fail so as to give them the opportunity to learn, through successive generations of death and destruction, how to appreciate what their forefathers had. It's absurd. If this is what reformed theology teaches, then it's absurd.
God created the angels knowing that He would throw out some of them
That is also absurd, HD. God created the angels knowing that some will fall away from Him on their own free will. But, if you follow Judaism and not Gospels, then you can surmise that angels cannot rebel against God— because they were created as obligate servants, so the only conclusion one can come up with is that God specifically created some angels to be discarded for no reason whatsoever! Absurd. Nothing short of absurd.
Because mutual love is a two-way street. It has to be free and it has to come from both hearts. It cannot be pre-programmed, or forced. Just because I love a girl before she meets me doesn't mean she has to love me once she does meet me! The fact that I lover her first does not oblige her to love me. Like I said, it's absurd.
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.