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.
Perseverence, Kolo, assumes a couple of things.
First, we must decide if we believe in regeneration or rehabilitation.
Second, we must decide if God is fickle or decisive.
If we assent to regeneration and decisive, then we must come something close to a Calvinist understanding of perseverence.
God will put everyone in the correct spot. In the end everyone will be where they truly want to be. There won't be anyone in hell saying, "I wish I had listened to Aunt Mrytle so I'd be sitting on a cloud somewhere playing a harp."
God is, after all, a God of love.
” First, we must decide if we believe in regeneration or rehabilitation.
Second, we must decide if God is fickle or decisive.
If we assent to regeneration and decisive, then we must come something close to a Calvinist understanding of perseverence.”
Not at all, if we believe that God’s grace falls on the wicked and the good equally, Padre. In great part, Padre, this is why so many Orthodox councils have anathemized Calvinism.
I thought, in TULIP, everyone truly wanted to be in hell, unless God made them not want to?
Are you not only saying that God will program people to go to Heaven, he’ll also program the ones that He sends to hell to like Hell? Burning in sulfur forever in the pit made for the devil and his angels? So they’ll like it?
And you call this the God of Love?
Not so, Kolo, if we believe in a second birth, a regeneration, and if we believe it is not just a metaphor for someone really being determined to change their own life, then we must believe that God has done a supernatural act in that person who has been regenerated.
As for fickle versus decisive, we have another choice.
On the one hand, we have the Christian. This month the Christian is “saved.” Next month he’s lost. The following month, he’s saved again. The next month or 2, he’s lost. Then he’s saved again. It’s a crap shoot all the way to his demise. In which month will he die? Is he saved by calendar or saved by grace? Such a fickle God I cannot believe to be legitimate.
On the other hand, there is a hope that there be a God who offers SOME degree of Assurance.
I tend toward that God and that Assurance.
I see.
Thank you.
“...then we must believe that God has done a supernatural act in that person who has been regenerated.”
Orthodoxy would say that God has “done a supernatural act” for all persons, equally; indeed Orthodoxy would say for all of Creation, Padre.
“On the one hand, we have the Christian. This month the Christian is “saved.” Next month he’s lost. The following month, he’s saved again. The next month or 2, he’s lost. Then he’s saved again. It’s a crap shoot all the way to his demise.”
The Western reformed/protestant concepts of “salvation” and that of the Orthodox East are different, Padre. We don’t see any “saved/not saved” paradigm because for us theosis is both a process and an end. You are dealing with a problem we simply don’t believe exists, rather like that of Pelagianism which caused such a stir in the West and barely a ripple in the East. Our basic beliefs about our created purpose and maybe even more about the nature of man as opposed to his condition a) since the Fall and b) since the Incarnation mean that discussions like the one we are having here are, nowadays anyway, necessarily destined to go nowhere.
are you telling me there is no salvation in the orthodox church?
Don't be too hasty here, we could start a new dogma. Think about it. There are several women in my church with more than 8 kids. We could start a treasury of merit, so that the church could use the extra salvation that these women aren't using, to save the ladies who have no children.;)
Hmmmm...rather interesting. The TULIP doesn't say this. I don't know if I'm correct that everyone truly wants to be in hell. We are children of wrath but God saves us from this condition by His grace and mercy. What I do know is that unless God changes our hearts we will never wish to be around God. We may not wish to be in hell, but we certainly don't wish to be in heaven.
Like it or not, God sentenced everyone to hell when Adam sinned. God knew what He was doing. And He allowed the tree in the garden. So it's a little bit silly to say that God programs people to go to hell. We've already been sentence to this place. God saves (some of) us from this faith. The rest just goes.
Oh I know we do
As you know I was using your structure:
In the end everyone will be where they truly want to be. There won't be anyone in hell saying, "I wish I had listened to Aunt Mrytle so I'd be sitting on a cloud somewhere playing a harp."
But with:
I don't know if I'm correct that everyone truly wants to be in hell.
Ok, we can abandon that structure and I can re-ask the question:
Is it taught that their eternal fate is predetermined: That they may have be born for hell no matter what?
I'm asking this again in the context of Calvinist teaching to kids. Is this taught?
“are you telling me there is no salvation in the orthodox church?”
No, I am saying that you use the term differently from the way I do. I readily admit that I have only a limited understanding of what it seems protestants mean by being “saved”; a one time event, discrete in time so that one can indeed ask another “Are you saved?”, right? In Orthodoxy that sort of question is not asked because Orthodox theology does not look at theosis like the Protestant West looks at “salvation”. It isn’t a one-time event. If it isn’t a one time event then there is no saved/not saved problem to deal with. For us, the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent demonstrates the process of theosis and so one can have a series of ascendings and descendings, advances and slips throughout life here on Earth. After death, at the Final Judgment we are examined to see how much, if any, similitude we bear to Christ. How much is enough or how little too little we simply don’t know.
What a gamble!!
You must admit that John 3 does make salvation seem much more certain than that line makes it seem
But folks can be wrong about their assurance.
At least I’ve been told so. Other people can be they tell me. Not me, but the other guy can be wrong.
The elect peservere, if they don’t persevere, they weren’t really elect.
Logically it would seem you have the same, er, “gamble”. You’ll know for sure when you get there.
You appear to have a little flock being led by shepherds who claim infallibility and led by the HS, but they seem to be at a loss when it comes to understanding the scriptures, especially John. I’m sure it’s a nice safe little flock but it’s not the only one.
Well, the focus of my question really was whether or not you believed that God programs people to like where they wind up.
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.