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.
“The Fathers taught in accord with +Paul, that baptism is a death and resurrection through which we share Christ’s Death and Resurrection and rising out of the waters of baptism we are indeed raised into a new life as a new creation.”
Is salvific grace imparted at baptism? If so, is it permanent or can one lose it on sinning?
What happens to the “new creation” on sinning or falling away?
It’s like watching children argue about who has the right keys to a car none of them are licensed to drive.
Kolob
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
According to the grace of God that was given to me, as a wise master-builder, a foundation I have laid, and another doth build on [it], for other foundation no one is able to lay except that which is laid, which is Jesus the Christ; and if any one doth build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- of each the work shall become manifest, for the day shall declare [it], because in fire it is revealed, and the work of each, what kind it is, the fire shall prove; if of any one the work doth remain that he built on [it], a wage he shall receive; if of any the work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; and himself shall be saved, but so as through fire.
... have ye not known that ye are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God doth dwell in you?
God comes into your human spirit bringing His Spirit Life, bringing you alive in Him. In a living process (a faithing in His promise to Be your deliverer), He transforms your soul as the old nature inherited from Adam is crucified daily. If you fial to act upon His urging to crucify an aspect of your old man, He does not leave you to be 're-saved' ... Moses lost the opportunity to enter into the promised land (not a figure of heaven, by the way, if you but look at what was in 'the promised land') because he struck the rock again for water when he was instructed to merely speak to the rock for the springing forth of life-giving water.
Corinitian fiahters = Corinthian Faithers ... my phone rang and I posted that before proof reading it!
“Is salvific grace imparted at baptism? If so, is it permanent or can one lose it on sinning?”
Ah, well I think we look at grace differently; indeed probably we look at baptism as something quite different from the way you understand it. The second question is the simplest to answer...no, sinning doesn’t cause us to “lose” grace. As I have said elsewhere, God’s grace falls on the good and the evil equally. As +Anthony the Great said, to say that God turns his grace away from the wicked is to say that the sun hides from the blind.
Now, as for baptism, +Cyril of Jerusalem was likely the most prolific Father on that subject.
“
...since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification [of baptism] also is two-fold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, ‘having our heart sprinkled’ by the Spirit, ‘and our body washed with pure water’ (Heb. 10:22). When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit: for without both you cannot possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, ‘Except a man be born anew’, and He adds these words, ‘of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’”
and
“...when a wound has gone deep into the body, even if there has been a healing, the scar remains, so sin wounds soul and body, and the marks of its scars remain in all; and they are removed only from those who receive the washing of Baptism. The past wounds therefore of soul and body God heals by Baptism; against future ones let us one and all jointly guard ourselves, that we may keep this vestment of the body pure, and may not for practicing fornication and sensual indulgence or any other sin for a short season, lose the salvation of heaven, but may inherit the eternal kingdom of God; of which may God, of His own grace, deem all of you worthy.”
and
“Make ready then the vessel of thy soul, that thou mayest become a son of God, and an heir of God, and joint-heir with Christ[9]; if, indeed, thou art preparing thyself that thou mayest receive; if thou art drawing nigh in faith that thou mayest be made faithful; if of set purpose thou art putting off the old man. For all things whatsoever thou hast done shall be forgiven thee, whether it be fornication, or adultery, or any other such form of licentiousness. What can be a greater sin than to crucify Christ? Yet even of this Baptism can purify. For so spoke Peter to the three thousand who came to him, to those who had crucified the Lord, when they asked him, saying, Men and brethren, what shall we do[1]? For the wound is great. Thou hast made us think of our fall, O Peter, by saying, Ye killed the Prince of Life[2]. What salve is there for so great a wound? What cleansing for such foulness? What is the salvation for such perdition? Repent, saith he, and be baptized every one in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
+Cyril wrote a wonderful Lecture #3 on Baptism (the above are taken from it). Here’s a link. I think it will answer your questions and demonstrate what Orthodoxy teaches.
As for what happens on sinning, well, one hopefully gets back on the Ladder of Divine Ascent after repentance. Remember that the Greek word for sin means to miss the mark, the mark being Christ. Its not an insult to Almighty God, but rather we cutting ourselves off from God. By cutting ourselves off from God, we cannot become like God and at the Final Judgment we would be found to have little or no similarity with Christ. I bet you can guess what that means, BD!
Re: 4567; sorry, I forgot that link!
http://www.monachos.net/library/Cyril_of_Jerusalem%2C_Catecheses%2C_Lecture_3
The thief on the Cross was not water baptised yet Jesus assured him of his deliverance with Jesus ... the thief had been born of the amniotic water and Jesus bore him into Spirit Life.
How was your summer” The family spent a week at Ocean Park and it was terrific.
“How was your summer” The family spent a week at Ocean Park and it was terrific.”
Fabulous! We were at Pine Point several times for family get togethers as the gang from NYC was up for a good part of July & August and staying at the Point. I noticed a substantial return of the Quebecers this year; just like old times! :)
“The thief on the Cross was not water baptised yet Jesus assured him of his deliverance with Jesus ... the thief had been born of the amniotic water and Jesus bore him into Spirit Life.”
Your point being? Orthodoxy doesn’t presume to know whither the Spirit will go.
In post 9567 there is this sentence quoted: ‘When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit: for without both you cannot possibly be made perfect.’ I was disagreeing with that assertion that ‘for without both you cannot possibly be made perfect.’
Oh. I have no doubt that +Cyril of Jerusalem, when sermonizing to pagans, was aware of the Thief and was not presuming to limit whomsoever Christ chose.
But you know, +Cyril of Jerusalem might well be one of those Fathers who firmly believed that there was no way into The Church save through baptism (which all the Fathers teach) and that outside The Church there is no salvation. This is not the consensus patrum, though the opposite likely isn't either.
” noticed a substantial return of the Quebecers this year; just like old times! :)”
I noticed that too. Probably the change in the exchange rate. A family friends son just started at Bowdoin College. He said it was a cultural shock to him. He grew up in Manhattan.
“A family friends son just started at Bowdoin College.”
Lucky boy, though he may not know it yet! #3 of the 4th generation (and 14th member of the family) started there this Fall too.
Your assessment is certainly fair, and I honor it.
Reformed theology is odd to me, mostly because of the idea of God creating people to condemn without seeing their demerits. This is against what the Bible says.
It strikes me as ironic that YOU, as opposed to the next very knowledgeable Apostolic (compliment intended), would say this. Historically, you have been a champion of the idea of God's timelessness. As such, God would obviously already know of everyone's demerits before He even started creation. So, that would "appear" to pour cold water on any idea that God "waits" to see merits or demerits before deciding anything. I think we disagree on whether God's foreknowledge dictates His predestination, or whether His predestination dictates His foreknowledge.
If you can post some Scriptures that refute this, as well as Christ's atonement was limited, maybe we could continue, but as it stands, these two things are really show-stoppers for me.
I think I have already posted to you the best I can come up with. I'm talking basically about all the predestination verses. In addition, I interpret the Bible when it says that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy to mean that He is completely sovereign and not swayed by the merit of deeds. I do not think that God "reacts" to us. I think we react to God according to His will.
I've always read the various ways that Baptism can be performed as indicating the symbolic nature of the act. Also in the Didache the discussion of calling the LORD'S SUPPER and how it was to be conducted and whom could participate indicated a great deal of flexibility.
Again, brilliantly stated. The "divine spark" is there but we lost "access" to it. Orthodoxy, not being juridical as Western Christianity is, does not see sin as breaking the law, but as "missing the mark" (Christ). We are "lost" as in lost in woods; and when one is lost he dies.
Mankind wondered off from God, who is the source of our life, anddetah naturally resulted form this (God does not abandon us; we abandon God). For this reason, we no longer have access to that which God created in us, which can be realized only in communion with Him.
Salvation is man's restored access to God. Not being saved from God. Like the Prodigal Son, we must return to God and only then are we restored to our place in His House through His unbound love and forgiveness.
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.