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.
Suzy; there are no real non cultural differences amongst the Catholic Churches. The Orthodox have held onto some of the central beliefs and promulgated them better than we.
But we’re God’s church. We are His Creations.
Unlike the Reformed, we have not reinvented God. We are His. He is not ours.
Once we get past our mindsets, we can see that the Church has really not changed much. Staring on a Patristic level which is the tradition of the West as much as the East, we can speak the same language as long as we understand that our mindsets look at the same thing form two different angles.
It's one way to get a consensus patrum.
Of course he did.
I hadn't thought of it that way before. Think I'll use it. Thanks.
He said: 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.
You said : Now you are saying that God listens to what we want? How Calvinist is that? Is your heart actually thawing and coming back to life?
No where in there does he say that God has to listen to us. You continue to invent straw men by putting words in people’s mouths that they do not say. I ask you again to quit.
And it's right there from the lips of Christ.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9-10;20"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Isn't it strange there are men who prefer to think their own good works will earn them heaven rather than to believe God gives us free, unmerited salvation through His own goodness alone; because He loved us before we could love Him?
Seems like one step forward; two steps back.
That was the point. The EO church does NOT believe in original sin nor in hell, according to the EO posters here.
Haven't you been reading this thread? They've proclaimed there is no hell and men are not stained by original sin.
What is it with you? So much hatred...
I answered your question and gave you AN EXAMPLE. I didn't say that the ONLY truth outside of the Catholic Church was Greek philosophy.
I've asked Kosta to stop doing that, too.
Please refrain from putting your words in other people's mouthes, Kosta. It's unsanitary.
LOL.
Can you at least tell me then how the Catholic Church came to understand that it has all the fulness of Christ?
We know that the church of the Colossians had it at one time, because Paul in his letter to them, said they did. But that was then and just to them, nobody else. That is what you said in an earlier post, that letters written to those churches were to them only, not to us certainly.
.I have searched the epistle to the Romans and nowhere do I see that Paul took it away from the Colossians and gave it to the church at Rome! I wonder then, when did they get it?
Another little problem is that from this thread, I deduce that the OC believes one thing about Adam, and original sin, etc., but the CC believes another. You can't both be right, so some church fathers somewhere have been faking.
You claim that Greeks with some knowledge of the logos have the truth as well as the CC. I have to think then that perhaps Kolo's church is right as opposed to yours, because they are Greek, maybe even descended from the Colossians who we know for sure had the fulness of Christ back in the day.
However, what do we do with Philo? He understood the Logos, even explaining it both to the Greeks as well as the Jews. I wonder how he understood it, being Jewish. I just don't know.
That is one of the best posts asking the most logical questions I’ve read on the Religion Forum.
And there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus his name, a ruler of the Jews, 2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.'3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;' 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God; 6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; 8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'
9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, `How are these things able to happen?'
10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel -- and these things thou dost not know!
11 `Verily, verily, I say to thee -- What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive; 12 if the earthly things I said to you, and ye do not believe, how, if I shall say to you the heavenly things, will ye believe? 13 and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.
14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up, 15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during, 16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; 18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 `And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; 20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected; 21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.'
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples to the land of Judea, and there he did tarry with them, and was baptizing; 23 and John was also baptizing in Aenon, nigh to Salem, because there were many waters there, and they were coming and were being baptized -- 24 for John was not yet cast into the prison -- 25 there arose then a question from the disciples of John with [some] Jews about purifying, 26 and they came unto John, and said to him, `Rabbi, he who was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou didst testify, lo, this one is baptizing, and all are coming unto him.'
27 John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven; 28 ye yourselves do testify to me that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am having been sent before him; 29 he who is having the bride is bridegroom, and the friend of the bridegroom, who is standing and hearing him, with joy doth rejoice because of the voice of the bridegroom; this, then, my joy hath been fulfilled.
30 `Him it behoveth to increase, and me to become less; 31 he who from above is coming is above all; he who is from the earth, from the earth he is, and from the earth he speaketh; he who from the heaven is coming is above all.
32 `And what he hath seen and heard this he doth testify, and his testimony none receiveth; 33 he who is receiving his testimony did seal that God is true; 34 for he whom God sent, the sayings of God he speaketh; for not by measure doth God give the Spirit; 35 the Father doth love the Son, and all things hath given into his hand; 36 he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.'
Young's Literal Translation
Which central beliefs has the EO promulgated better than the RCC? (And does Ratzinger know about this?)
Would it be the central belief in original sin, which the EO denies?
Would it be the central belief in hell, which the EO denies?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you indeed were "trying to get to the botoom" of things... Thus, when you made your somewhat rude exclamation "Is there any truth outside your Catholic Church Jo Kus?", I responded by trying to explain how we see things:
#7914: The Catholic Church has never said it contains the ONLY truth, just the FULLNESS of Truth that God has given to mankind through Jesus Christ. Even as far back as the second century, Church Fathers recognized that truth existed in "protoevangelium" form among the Greek philosophers and their recognition of the Logos.
Your response:
#7918: So the only truth that there is in the world outside of the Catholic Church is Greek philosphy. Is that right up to today re Greek philosophers?
Well, either you had a problem reading my post or you have some natural aversion to anything Catholic, since I never said that truth outside of the Catholic Church is relegated to ONLY Greek philosophers. I was merely giving you an example - which certainly does not include the broad spectrum of truth found outside of the Church.
Listen. If you want to discuss issues, I believe others can vouch for me - I will try to give the Catholic point of view - and allow you to keep yours. If you come here to start an argument, you may troll elsewhere, I am not interested.
Regards
I think you miss-typed that. It should read "those who do not BELIEVE are lost". Scriptures do not give us the sense that because someone believed (past tense) once in their lifetime, that they will not be lost. (Mat 7:21, for example) It does not match with what you write in the next sentence: Those who ARE BELIEVING are saved.
I will agree with that. Those who believe - NOW - are being saved.
Regards
If you can’t answer the questions just say so. Like I said earlier we come to debate the scriptures, no one has to participate if they don’t want to. Frankly, if you are not able to defend the position that you hold here and have posted regarding, then don’t.
Yes, that's what he wrote. And what I am reading says: God will give everyone what they truly wanted. In other words, He trailored their final destination according to their wishes. Is that not listening to what we want? Is that not fulfilling our wishes?
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.