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.
Then you must not have come across his argument that souls can "endure as long as God wills them to endure" (perseverant autem quoadusque eas Deus et esse, et perseverare voluerit).
In other words, his argument is that the soul is not itself a life: it must be given life.And that which is given is outside of the self, its nature. Only God is Life itself (Adversus haereses II, 34).
Like I said, you need to get your facts straight, HD.
Clement of Alexandria, who was a Platonist, admits that the soul was not immortal "by nature" (hinc apparet quoniam non est naturaliter anima incorruptibilis, Adumbrationes, I Petri 1:9) .
+Jerome states "I do not say, indeed, that all souls die."
If Man from the beginning had chosen things immortal, in obedience to God's commandments, he would have been rewarded with immortality and have become God, "an adoptive God," deus assumptus, Theos anadihthis (+Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum II, 24 and 27).
"The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die" (Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, 13).
Blessed Augustine qualifies the immortality of the soul to be given by God: Anima hominis immortalis est secundum quendam modum suum; non enim omni modo sicut Deus (Epist. VFF, ad Hieronymum (and is therefore not by its nature itself life), and he also states in two instances (Jo., tr. 23, 9; cf. De Trinitate, 19.15, and De Civ. Dei, 19.3) that the soul is mortal according to the mutability of this life (mortalis in quantum mutabilis).
+John of Damascus states that even Angels are not immortal by nature, but only by grace (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II, 3)
[T]hat "intellectual beings are not immortal by nature" [but only by the grace of God] (+Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, VI Ecumenical Council, 681 AD)
St. John od Damascus sucessfully proved that incons were not idolatry. The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an "ecumenical" council.
St. John od Damascus sucessfully proved that incons were not idolatry. The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an "ecumenical" council.
I didn't make any mention of it being an "ecumenical council". That council itself did.
He sure likes to throw around the “Heretic” comment, doesn’t he?
You can exist and be dead. Stones exist too, FK. But we are not born dead; just "wounded" and sure to die unless we come to the Great Phyisican who can save us. Those who don't will be dead one day—does oblivion mean anything to you?
Then you have a special theological definition of the concept of immortality that is unknown to us
No, I don't, FK. Soul itself is not life. It must be given life. Therefore it has no life of its own.
I have always considered it a basic Christian principle and had no idea that there were entire groups of Christians who disagreed with it, as you appear to.
How do you think we feel seeing all these innovations for the past 500 years? I have already told that we do not believe in one and the same thing. We are not all in the same"club." The path to God is narrow and few shall find it. The broadband approach of relativistic Protestantism and various cults is a hit-and-miss approach, mostly left up to an individual to figure it out. Good luck!
Well, from the eastern perspective all westerners are hairyticks, starting with what they call the mother of all heresies, the filioque clause Rome unilaterally added to the Nicene Creed, which was in violation of the two ecumenical councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, by the way.
My understanding is that some Protestant groups consider it an “ecumenical” council. Clearly the Church doesn’t, so I am not sure why you even mentioned it.
I am using the word "heretic" in the proper Greek context. It is not derogatory and you are more than welcome to look up the correct meaning. Heresy is that which is not taught by the Church.
The "Church" at that time deemed it an "ecumenical council".
Ok, Heretic, no problem.
Do you believe that God creates any person to NOT be His Children?
....Or do you believe that God creates and wills "all" of us to be His children? Another words...We have to freely accept God’s will, because we love God’s will, whatever God’s will may be for us-even if God's will for us is pain and the cross?
***Do you believe that God creates any person to NOT be His Children?
....Or do you believe that God creates and wills “all” of us to be His children? Another words...We have to freely accept God’s will, because we love God’s will, whatever God’s will may be for us-even if God’s will for us is pain and the cross?***
Yes. God said he was the Potter, we are the clay. Some he makes for good purposes, others he makes for not so good purposes. We are his to do as he wills. Note I said AS HE WILLS. It is not for us to question God and why he chooses as he does. We have no say in the matter. He chooses whom he chooses. We do not “accept God’s will”, we have no say. We only rejoice in him because we have been transformed. Only the transformed will be with God in heaven. We do not ‘choose’ to be transformed, God chooses whom he will transform. Read through Romans 9 about God’s sovereign choice. Please read it.
“”Some he makes for good purposes, others he makes for not so good purposes.””
Do you think you could have been made for not good so good purposes?
Stones are not dead, they are inanimate. There's a difference. However, I think I know where you all are coming from on the mortal/immortal issue. You equate a soul's mortality with its destination. I don't see it that way since I think they are two separate issues.
Those who don't [come to Christ] will be dead one day—does oblivion mean anything to you?
Theologically, not really. :) What does "oblivion" mean in Orthodoxy?
FK: "Then you have a special theological definition of the concept of immortality that is unknown to us."
No, I don't, FK. Soul itself is not life. It must be given life. Therefore it has no life of its own.
The soul is given immortal existence when it is created. That soul will spend eternity (forward from physical death) in either a glorified existence with God in Heaven, OR in a damned existence in hell. It will exist forever either way, so these are two different issues. Therefore, to combine these two issues into one means you are using a special definition.
How do you think we feel seeing all these innovations for the past 500 years?
Probably the same way we did at the time of the Reformation. :)
***Do you think you could have been made for not good so good purposes?***
I am trying to understand your question. If you are asking if I was made for good or not good purposes, I would have to say that since God has found it in his mercy to extend grace to me, I must have been made for good purposes. Therefore, I must be constantly aware of needs around me and to do the good works God has placed in front of me.
If you are asking if I could have been made for not so good purposes, It might have been, but I would not be aware of it. I would just live my life, unconcerned about God and his will. In the end, God’s will would have seen that I would not be found acceptable to him and I would be sent to the hell that I deserved due to my totally depraved nature.
God could save everyone, however, he chooses to save only some. Why? If I knew, I would be God, which I am not (for sure :>)
If God is Love.How can love not want ALL to be saved?How could God not will this for all?.
Christianity is about freely following the will of God!
If God does not will love for all than God is not love
***If God is Love.How can love not want ALL to be saved?How could God not will this for all?.
Christianity is about freely following the will of God!
If God does not will love for all than God is not love***
God is love. God is also righteous, pure, unstained, holy, blameless, faithful, just, etc.
In his nature there is no wrong. God in his infinite wisdom, allowed even some of his highest creation, angels, to stray. That is how Satan came to Earth. God allows Satan to do his evil on man. Man, because of his inability to obey God due to the sin nature, follows Satan instead. God chooses some of these fallen men to change, to become born again, to be a new creation. God, in his justice and righteousness, does not have to do this, but because God is also love he chooses some. He doesn’t have to.
God could also change everybody, but he doesn’t. No one is able to understand why.
God could save every one, but he only save the few. Does that make him any more or less just, righteous, loving? No.
If God chooses to save the few, does that make him weak? No, he could save everybody, he has the power, the ability to do it. It is his plan, his will, his right to do with us as HE wills. We are just created objects that he can do with as he wills.
When man assumes that God is unloving because he doesn’t save everybody, we are putting our feelings above the will of God.
IT, you have been on the FR for quite a while and you should know that calling any poster a heretic is an ad hominem.
You need to take some time and famliarize yourself with posting Religion Forum rules.
I think we have been through this before. I will leave it up to the RM to explain to you that these rules are taken seriously. Please temper your personal comments or you will start a dangerous precedent which, I am sure, the RM will not tolerate.
***How do you know when you walk by a bagger on the street and give him no money, food or drink ,turn your back on him/her that you are following the will of God and are of the elect?***
I don’t know if I am following the will of God at this point. I have given food, money, etc to beggers on the street. But how do I know if I am really helping them? I also give to missions who help these people. I have even served dinner, washed dishes, preached and prayed with these people at missions. I do this not for my glory, but for the glory of God. I do not do it in order to receive anything, I do it because God place the opportunity in front of me and I responded.
I was also benevelence chairman of my church for many years. I have had hundreds of people contact me for help. Some we helped, some we turned away for various reasons. We do these things because God has given us good works to do.
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.