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.
“So, then why didn’t the Church add the writings of +Symneon the New Theologian and others to the canon of scripture?”
Because they weren’t writing scripture, they were writing “commentaries” and “instruction manuals”, though I suppose the same could be said for +Paul.
I honestly believe that The Church is quite clear that both scripture and the writings of the Fathers, to the extent they are in the consensus patrum, are inspired by God. What makes NT scripture “scripture” is likely the Apostolic quality, though that raises questions then of why +Paul and not +Ignatius of Antioch or +Clement of Rome, both of whose letters were read for at least a couple of centuries during the Liturgy (the Shepherd too for that matter). Perhaps the distinction is that the canon of the NT and that of the OT read in light of the NT provides literally everything we need for theosis, with the writings of the others, however inspired, merely providing a gloss.
I do know that the Greek Church is very cautious of anything that smacks of a Mohammedan attitude towards the Bible, Bibliolatry, so to speak. The canons of both the NT and the OT are creations of The Church. I don’t think that can be repeated too much, especially nowadays.
“But man, unlike animals, is unique and depraved; and it all stems from Adam.”
I take it you doubt that animal nature might have been twisted by man’s sin?
Hmmmm...that's a good question that, quite frankly, I've never thought about. Are animals' nature twisted because of their surroundings, are their nature twisted because of the will of God (such as the "fear of man" falling on them after Noah), is it a combination, or none? I'm not sure.
The Christian position has been that everything is tainted but what does that mean for animals? In the OT if an animal such as an ox, had a history of gorging a person, it was considered sin on the animal and the ox was to be put to death. But I'm not sure that isn't too literal of an interpretation. All I can say, without more research, is that animals are not quite what they use to be and should be.
BTW, I see you are relatively new to FR and you are a welcome addition. Your postings are excellent.
:::MB: So Raphael catches prayers directly to God in some sort of heavenly bucket and then presents them to God? I thought that Jesus was the only intermediary in Reformed doctrine. This gets better and better.
MLG: You are confusing the role Christ stands in as the Intermediary as a defense attorney for the Redeemed, with those who offer intercessory prayer, and then twist the meanings for license to practice necromancy and the invoking of angels, both of which are forbidden by God.:::
Pray then speak of the heavenly prayer buckets toted about by the angels, if you would. I think that the self-identified Reformed Redeemed are going to need a very good defense attorney; I suspect that that indwelling heartburn will turn out to be just that.
Catholics do not practice necromancy any more than they practice cannibalism. There is really little excuse, with the immense archives and websites available for all, even the Paulines, to really dig in and truly understand Catholicism. ‘Tis a pity that your frantic hyperbole is the stereotypical sound and fury...
I wish you a blessed evening!
I have no idea why I doubt your sincerity. (Continued sarcasm).
My ignorance is daily shrinking due to the most excellent postings of the frantic, tempered with most excellent prose of the WCF, the Catechisms, and Saint Calvin himself (PBUH).
You have amassed a truly incredible theology, evolving quite nicely in many different directions, as the splinters of the splinters of the splinters keep splintering. I truly wish you well. Ignorance can be remedied, but schizophrenia can only be treated.
Sorry, my education includes English, Scripture, and logic. I must be missing something. Would you be so kind as to reword the reply so it becomes legible to the unReformed?
I’m not sure that I have had the pleasure of the acquaintance of pope Mike. Is he of the Calvinist persuasion?
I most certainly would include Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, probably more as developers of ancient heresies, and somewhat less as inventors of new ones.
But let us go back to the first millennium:
Simon Magus (the development of “Christian” Gnosticism)
Manichaeus (Manichaenism ensnared Saint Augustine for 9 years)
Ammonius Saccas (neo Platonism)
Montanus
Paul of Samosata (Monarchianism)
Sabellius (Modal Monarchianism)
Arius
Nestorius
Elipandus of Toledo (Adoptionism)
to name a few.
Augustine timeline:
Born 354
Extensive religious schooling in Tagaste and Madaura
Carthage 370
Became Manichaean 373
To Italy to study neo Platonism, came under tutelage of Ambrose 383
Epiphany 386
Baptized 387
Ordained 391
Sole Bishop of Hippo 396
Died 430
We cannot have everlasting life without God’s grace. It is just possible to spurn that grace, though. God chose all men; not all men choose God.
Wasn't Origen considered an early Father? Yet, he was excommunicated. In addition, many of the original Reformers, now considered heretics, were humanly inspired by Augustine. All I was saying is that there were lots of Fathers who went off the reservation, as compared to the majority, on at least one issue or other. I'm asserting that the reason for that must have been the accusation of private interpretation.
Pretty sure that was a local excommunication. You have me intrigued, I haven't spent that much time investigating all of the Fathers of the Church, there are quite a few. I'm not prepared to say that "lots" of the Church Fathers "went off the reservation" but will try to do more reading concerning the issue. Thanks.
Catholic Apologists and Protestant Apologists/Antagonists each cherrypick the writings of the Early Church Fathers when it suits their purposes.
Suffice to say that many of the Early Church Fathers might well have reached a toasty end for their "heretical" teachings.
So let me get this straight. When the Church uses a term in English, and I quote from the dictionary, that's a straw man. I will keep that in mind. :)
FK: "So, if no one had prayed, might they have survived?"
No, but this proves my point that Calvinists see prayer as an obligation which has no effect on anything.
Then you don't read all of my posts to you. It has a direct affect on the one praying. I answered this in detail directly to you in 9,954.
[About the miners:] They prayed for life and they received death. And your own quote from Phil 4:19 says "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" suggests that they did not know their needs.
From this we can draw two possibilities: (1) the verse is not true but misinterpreted or (2) those who truly believe will not pray because we (robots) don't know what our needs are. Number 1 is very likely. Number 2 is Calvinism 101.
For someone who doesn't declare Bible verses "wrong" you are fooling a lot of us. :) The first option is out the window because the Bible is true. The second is out the window because whether we know our needs is irrelevant to whether we should or will pray.
The correct answer is that of course none of us knows all of our specific needs at any given time. For all Christians, at some point it becomes our need to be with the Lord. Who among us can know exactly when that is? We can't. God does (since He determines our needs) and He brings all of us home at that time. Needs are both physical AND spiritual.
If this life is so short of "glorious riches in Christ Jesus" then why are all Calvinists still around on this filthy earth, and why are they not hastening their departure? (David Koresh and Tom Jones alert!)
Suicide is not a rational option for Calvinists because He forbids it. We know that God will bring us home when He decides it is time. While on earth, one of the primary needs of the Christian is to serve Christ. When that service is complete, our need is to be with our loving God, so He brings us home.
***Suicide is not a rational option for Calvinists because He forbids it. We know that God will bring us home when He decides it is time. While on earth, one of the primary needs of the Christian is to serve Christ. When that service is complete, our need is to be with our loving God, so He brings us home.***
Philippians 1 says to live is Christ and to die is gain. Paul answered his own question and desire here. His desire was to be with God, but God’s need was for him to be here.
:>)
I wish they would keep practicing until the Mariners win it all!
“Hmmmm...that’s a good question that, quite frankly, I’ve never thought about.”
Its worth thinking about in terms of a creation perfect by “nature” having become distorted after the Fall by man’s sinfulness. What does this say about the purpose and meaning of the Incarnation and “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”?
All creation is to be perfected as it was created in perfection. Like with so much of what we as Christians believe, it gets back to man’s sinfulness, man’s failure to “hit the mark” and fulfill his created purpose which is to be like God.
***I most certainly would include Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, probably more as developers of ancient heresies, and somewhat less as inventors of new ones.***
You would, but I don’t. Everything the believed they backed up with scripture. I cannot say the same with the Catholic Church.
What do you do when the Catholic Church and the Bible do not agree? WHat do you do when Tradition and the Bible do not agree?
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.