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.
Asking prayers of the saints comes from the second century, it is Catholic.
We don't worship Mary as God.
Celibacy as a requirement for priesthood is a legitimate complaint.
Transubstantiation is a first century Catholic belief, just not called that until the eleventh century. We also believed in the Trinity, although the term didn't come about until the end of the second century, well after the writing of the NT...
The Pope. Well, that is also a Catholic belief that is at least from the second century. While his powers have certainly developed as God's Spirit required, it is a legitimate Catholic teaching from Scriptures.
Thanks for telling me what you thought. Perhaps if you were to read Church history and the development of doctrine, you might be convinced that these Catholic beliefs are not "Roman Catholic", but were part and parcel of our beliefs from practically the beginning. They all are found in Scriptures, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Regards
Self identification as one of the elect; in opposition to the Catholic / Christian beliefs empowers one to basically consider anything possible. Including permanent salvation.
It doesn’t matter that it makes Biblical sense, all that matters is that a twisted interpretation of relatively recent pronouncement can theoretically be justified. The Church Fathers are swept away. The writings of the first Popes are dismissed. We have a romantically inspired vision of the early Christians which happily coincides with whichever denomination of Protestantism that one happens to belong to.
Therefore I’m right and all those thousands of other Protestants, however well meaning, are wrong. Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) has much to answer for.
Harley responded: There is a subtle difference between "man's" will and "free" will. Here is an excellent passage by Calvin's on the two. It is rather long but these people sure like to write.
Sorry to say this, Harley, but I was not commenting on free will, but on infused righteousness. In other words, that man is actually changed inside, not just an external righteousness that is not really ours. We have been talking about Harley being righteous because of God's Spirit. I had thought that Calvin approached the Catholic point of view on that subject. Do you have any comment on that?
On free will, I do disagree with Mr. Calvin. I prefer Augustine and Aquinas.
Regards
See, this is where we disagree. Those are Catholic beliefs, but not Christian beliefs. I have read church history, and I understand that some of these beliefs came from the early church. That doesn’t mean they are correct. I have seen writings from the Pope that call for the WORSHIP of Mary. This is an error.
All that said, I know enough of you from your postings that you are a God fearing, God honoring man (person?) who holds fast to the teaching of your church. Most of which I agree with.
Please consider with respect those who hold to the belief and trust of Jesus, but do not agree with some of your churches teachings. If we believe in Jesus, we are all brothers.
***In other words, that man is actually changed inside,...***
Yes, this is what we believe also. A Man saved by God is a NEW creation, eternally changed.
***On free will, I do disagree with Mr. Calvin. I prefer Augustine and Aquinas.***
How do you feel abot Luther :>)
Well, I can understand that they consider themselves "elect". The problem is the incorrect useage of the term to mean "saved for eternal glory". That is not what "elect" means. It means being called to repentance and accepting Christ as our Savior, being called into the People of God and being baptized by water and the Spirit. In that, they may very well be "elect", although in a remote way (as Vatican 2 Lumen Gentium describes our separated brothers, they are part of the Church through a valid baptism and belief in Christ - which goes back to St. Cyprian's time!).
But NONE of that means they will receive eternal glory after the final resurrection - which is their error. It is presumption. While we can have "subjective assurance", that is not a guarantee from God. Many will say "Lord, Lord", and He will say "I never knew you". This is not going to be said to pagans, but to presumptive Christians!
Paul said be careful so that "you" do not falter. Immediately before this (1 Cor 10), Paul talked about many members of the Church, the elect, who had indeed been saved and then fell. We must always be on guard, because satan is prowling like a lion looking for someone to falter, such as the pervert in 1 Cor 5.
Take care, brother
I had thought that Mr. Calvin came close in this area to Catholicism, more so than Mr. Luther.
How do you feel abot Luther :>)
Mr. Luther had a beautiful and well balanced devotion to Mary, believed in the Real Presence of Jesus at the Eucharist, believed in infant baptism (despite it not being a Scriptural warrant - one he readily admitted) and was closer to Catholicism on other issues than Mr. Calvin. His idea on salvation by faith began as a good positive principle until he denied the role of love and repentance as part of that formula. Actually, I kind of feel for Mr. Luther, I think he really did want to reform Catholicism from the inside. Unfortunately, his pride did not allow it and he declared that Church Councils were not infallible while being questioned on his beliefs by Eck. That spelled the end of his possible role as a positive influence upon the Catholic Church. From there, he went downhill and further from the faith of his fathers.
What Mr. Luther DID do for the Church was force it to define what it believed on a number of ambiguous and questioned issues at the Council of Trent.
Regards
Those who God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his own Son... Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
It’s all so simple, really. God is in control.
I believe that Luther wanted to reform the church, also.
Not sure what you mean by "Catholic but not Christian beliefs", since these beliefs predated Protestantism by over 1000 years. They are just as much part of the faith as the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ.
Regarding the word "worship", it had different meanings 100 years ago. If you read the context surrounding the word "worship", you would find out what the Pope meant. Sometimes, we use different words with different definitions, but if we look at the context, we can see what they meant in our terms. It is clear that the Pope did not intend on placing Mary as an equal to God. You will not find any such writings from the Popes.
All that said, I know enough of you from your postings that you are a God fearing, God honoring man (person?) who holds fast to the teaching of your church. Most of which I agree with. Please consider with respect those who hold to the belief and trust of Jesus, but do not agree with some of your churches teachings. If we believe in Jesus, we are all brothers.
You are absolutely correct. What is funny is that the title of that thread is about that very subject! I have no doubt that the majority of Christians here are as you say. If we were to take the time to find where we agree, I think we would find that we are much closer, as you said earlier. However, it is more likely that people will focus on where we disagree - and the arguments continue! The fact that we do this, I think, is an indication of our passion and commitment to the truth as we see it. Which is interesting, because I have found that Protestants who convert to Catholicism often become the most active Catholics...God has placed a passion within these people for Him, and now they see the Truth in the Church.
I think Jesus spent a lot of time with the Pharisees because He saw them to be closest to the truth and thought that His teachings would best effect them (as opposed to the Sadducees and the Essenes).
Brother in Christ, Joe
He would have been a great Catholic saint, no doubt, if he would have been able to stop short of forcing the Church to excommunicate him. Some of the greatest Catholic reformers were able to operate within Catholic teachings but were able to call the leadership to task for some of their failings.
Regards
Amen. There is a dark side to it that is not of Christ, imo.
You are confusing foreknowledge with (double)predestination.
***Not sure what you mean by “Catholic but not Christian beliefs”, since these beliefs predated Protestantism by over 1000 years. ***
Scriptural, instead of tradition.
***It is clear that the Pope did not intend on placing Mary as an equal to God. You will not find any such writings from the Popes.***
JPII said it. Wish I could dredge it up, but no time. (I am at work)
Calling Mary Co-redemptix(sp) puts her equal to Jesus. Another error. She birthed and raised Jesus, that should be honor enough.
No doubt she is honored among man, but to raise her any higher is error.
I am not confusing anything. Answer the question.
***Amen. There is a dark side to it that is not of Christ, imo.***
Your opinion sucks, in my opinion. Talk about dark side, sheesh.
Amazing isn't it?
Super technically, we are a new creation when the Spirit "comes", but before He indwells. First He comes and changes the heart. Then we are equipped to believe. Then we actually believe, and then He indwells. So, the changing of the heart is very real, and not just a symbolic thing. We are changed for real, and have the new ability to do good in God's eyes (for the first time). The legal declaration is much more associated with our justification by Christ on the cross, a completely separate event for this purpose. After regeneration has been accomplished I still say I am a sinner, but I am saved. I will become truly righteous at entry into Heaven (glorification).
IF we are recreated, taking on a different nature as created by God, then is it so far fetched to say that man CAN, with God's Grace, reach out to Him and ask for forgiveness, to pray, and to obey the Lord?
That is exactly what happens. Moreover, since this new nature is SO different and profound (and efficacious) compared to the original, I would replace the word "CAN" with the word "WILL". The person goes from a 0% chance of salvation to a 100% chance.
BECAUSE we are a new creation, the idea that man can do NOTHING must be discarded.
That's right. Now we can do good.
Christ came SPECIFICALLY to perfect us. To divinize us.
Christ came SPECIFICALLY to save His children. He does not finish the good work that we began (if that is what "perfect" means). He will finish the good work that HE began.
[After regeneration:] We CAN love our enemies. We DO help the helpless, the poor. WE become concerned for their welfare. Is this possible without God? No. But is it possible without us? No. Not because God cannot do it, but because God CHOOSES to allow man free will, which is an instrumental part of love.
Helping the helpless and the poor, etc. is not possible without us??? :) Is all the good that happens in the world God working through men? Of course not. Job 38:4-41 answers this pretty clearly. Do you think God has ever used one bad guy to benefit another bad guy, i.e. no believer was involved? Of course. Look at how many of the world's governments have been established, including most in the OT.
Thus, God is ACTIVE in humanism, the perfecting of mankind.
Without intending a shot, is that what "humanism" means in Catholic theology? I have used that word in a very different way in earlier posts to you. :)
Your tone is unacceptable. Please do not post to me ever again.
And the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses consider themsleves "Christians" and a continuation of the original Church...and Airans think of themsleves as "orthodox" Christians...etc. Every heretic in the world believes his "church" is true contnuation of the original Church, but only one Church has aposotlic authority. The rest are born of men in protest and personal preference.
The Orthodox Church prays and teaches the same thing it taught 1,700 years ago and longer; our liturgy hasn't changed' our teology hasn't changed; our Bible hasn't changed. It's the same Greek Church and Greek theology and Greek Bible.
I am tired of people who invented various denominaions in the 16th century and later telling me that my Church is somehow in "apostasy."
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.