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.
“What a gamble!!”
No gamble, Padre. Its just the fact of the condition we humans find ourselves in. Sometimes clients complain to me about the “injustice of it all”. I often tell them they might as well complain about the sun going up or going down.
” You must admit that John 3 does make salvation seem much more certain than that line makes it seem.”
I’m at the office Padre so I reply in haste with perhaps more later when I am home. John 3 is a great chapter in the Gospels, one the Fathers speak of often. Those who indeed “die to the self” so that they exist only to act in accordance with God’s will and to contemplate the uncreated divine light will experience complete theosis, they will become “divinized”, they will become “gods”, as a number of the Fathers noted, not by participation in the Divine Essence, but by adoption, which is our created purpose, the ability to fulfill which was lost in the Fall and restored by the Incarnation.
An elegant, yet simple, summation, sir.
It appears to accurately reflect the Latin beliefs as well.
“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, actually its the second largest Christian flock(after the Latins). As for it being one of many flocks, well of course you are correct. That’s sort of my point, 1000. We believe very, very different things about “salvation”. Eastern Christians have read John 3 and the rest of Scripture for the past 2000 years and understand one thing, Western Protestants read the same thing, or translations of varying degrees of acuracy of the same thing, and come up with a very different understanding. When the differences in understanding are on a point so basic as salvation, it makes theological discussion pretty much fruitless. Indeed, this and other differences on basic theology explain why beyond discussions between Rome and Orthodoxy and perhaps with some conservative Anglicans and Lutherans, ecumenical talk about reunion of The Church with separated Christians is just a silly waste of time.
Lol, yes, then how does one in your church ever grow spiritually, grow in the grace and wisdom of Christ Jesus? Perhaps that is why you can't know anything about spiritual growth until your dead? Aren't you people spiritually alive?
Numbers 11 is a good example, where you have the 70 meeting the HS in the "proper" place, yet that old HS He's over someplace else working away. A couple of the 70 were a bit put out by it, wanted to kill them.
You are misunderstanding what Kolo is saying. Naturally, we can know our spiritual growth, the whole POINT of a "spiritual ladder" necessitates that we "know" at what point we are on this ladder! And although the soul is invisible, the Orthodox believe that they/we can know the effects of the Spirit by the fruit that man accomplishes (as per the New Theologian).
The Orthodox do not believe that we do not know our status with God, but that Catholic/Orthodox view salvation differently than Protestants. We see salvation as a process of becoming divinized, being MADE like God, a recapitulation of the image that we were initially created in. Unfortunately, some Protestants have twisted the idea of "nature" and make it totally evil. This concept is unknown to Orthodox (from my understanding). Thus, you are going to be talking past each other regarding salvation and man's "fallen nature", which is a Western concept resulting from Augustine's discussions vs. Pelagianism.
Regards
When you consider that Jesus uses the present tense of "believes", I don't see Him as speaking in "certain" terms in regards to the future... He never mentions that a person is saved because they BELIEVED 20 years ago.
Regards
Is there any truth outside your Catholic Church Jo Kus?
“Your shepheds claim infallibility”
Where did you get the idea that Orthodox hierarchs claimed or claim to be infallible? That’s simply untrue.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp
there might be truth but there is not the faith Christ gave us outside the church as we haven’t changed that btw archaeology and history show this as a fact; even the catacomb Christians practiced the same way.
you understand btw that heriarchs are failable human individuals... unlike false prophets of the west they don’t claim to be God.
“Lol, yes, then how does one in your church ever grow spiritually, grow in the grace and wisdom of Christ Jesus?”
By grace, this happens: “...while we are still in this life we shall often waver in our self-determining, hesitating whether to fulfill the commandments or give way to our passions. Gradually, as we struggle, the mystery of Christ will be revealed to us if we devote ourselves totally to obeying His precepts. The moment will come when heart and mind are so suffused by the vision of the infinite holiness and humility of the God-Christ that our whole being will rise in a surge of love for God.”
“Perhaps that is why you can’t know anything about spiritual growth until your dead? Aren’t you people spiritually alive?”
Orthodoxy, 1000, has been spiritually “alive” for 2000 years because we understand that until one “dies to the self”, one cannot enter into true life.
Is there truth outside your church?
“Ok, so there is truth outside of your Church?”
There may well be. I don’t think The Church speaks to that. For example, The Church cannot say that there is no salvation outside The Church since The Church cannot and does not determine whither the Spirit goes. The Church does say that all that is necessary for theosis is found within The Church.
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.
Amen, x!
"He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail." -- 1 Samuel 2:9
Nor are they qualified to say who does or who does not. We see in the examples from Numbers 11 that even those with the HS resting on them couldn't tell that those outside their group had it.
In Luke 9, we see that Jesus Himself, sends out the 12 Apostles to preach, and here they come in verse 9:49, saying "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us."
Notice whom the one was not following.
The Mormons claim to have captured the HS in a jar like a lightning bug and only their priests can parcel Him out. Perhaps in the BOM, Jesus says "And I saw the HS fall like a lightning bug from heaven", I don't know, but it's just an example that no one group has all the truth no matter what they claim.
The only Truth we can be sure of is the truth in God's Word, given to all of us.
So anyway, to say that discussing the Word of Truth outside of the opinion of your church fathers, "is fruitless" could just be a hindrance in going up that ladder of yours.
The biggest differences are summed up:
“In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer (public worship and private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”). Thus, the highest form of Christian living (”the supreme philosophy”) is monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for perfection.
Monasticism, in this sense, among Roman Catholics has all but disappeared. As a “supernatural religion” so-called, it has become increasingly “this-worldly.” Therefore, it has abandoned its medieval heritage, and its understanding of man, his nature and destiny has become increasingly secular. “
This characterization of monasticism among Roman Catholics is exaggerated, but it does illustrate the point. Monasteries, while less emphasized in the West, still exist in some numbers. In our current state, we have emphasized different aspect of the doctrine, that’s all.
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.