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.
Are you in the habit of shooting from the hip?
1. I believe in God.
2. I am skeptical regarding the Trinity. (Don't believe belief in the Trinity is necessary).
3. Am I going to Hell?
Oh, OK. Thanks. I suppose then I did not mean it that way. I do distinguish between "word" and "Word".
We love because God first loved us.
I understand the theology; but is this why you love God? To elaborate, you do not necessarily love everyone who loves you, so "because He loves you" would not necessarily explain why you love Him.
We understand our just punishment and the salvation that God has wrought in our lives.
Is this why you love God? Would you not love God if He decided you were not to be saved?
There is no "forced" love.
Then you can make choices not to love God? If so - or even if not:
Why do you love God?
Trick question: Which of these would you say is identical with the Scriptures?
My question has nothing whatsoever to do with the belief of an individual that he is saved; rather, the individual saved by God once.
It gets to the different meanings ascribed to saved.
If 'saved' means Heaven then it is a one time event, and it is not "possible for God to unsave one He has already saved."
Forget for the moment the differing understandings of OSAS.."
That's where the error occurs.
Are you saying that man has no free will UNTIL the Holy Spirit comes into him? So the majority of men have no free will? Can you back this up biblically?
St. Irenaeus did not say CANNOT. He is not saying anything close to the Calvinist position. He is saying IF he DOES NOT. There is no cannot involved. Therefore your commentary on Irenaeus seems a tad off.
I’d say that the acknowledgement of God’s Grace is probably tantamount to accepting it, but that it can be rejected by the choice of the individual at some point in time. I’m not sure that the reverse is true.
We do have different definitions of ‘saved’. We look at ‘saved’ at the Judgement, not here in life, where it is possible to backslide. The Reformed view is that there is a point in time during life where the saving occurs. We may be talking past each other if we continue to use different definitions.
“Trick question: Which of these would you say is identical with the Scriptures?’
You’re good! :)
Do you believe that satan is God’s willing and faithful servant?
These guys do: http://www.epm.org/articles/Satanoutcome.htm
These guys do: http://www.watchtower.org/e/200611/article_02.htm
These guys do: http://www.ldolphin.org/angelicrule.html
And so does Calvin: http://www.the-highway.com/calvin-sovereignty_Murray.html
You may apologize at your leisure, sir.
1. That is right and good.
2. That seems to wander out towards heretical territory.
3. Beats me.
There is only One who knows. I don’t know if an individual is going to hell. The Church doesn’t know. Only God knows.
I believe it would be accurate to say you believe: A)This love is not given to all, and B) Once given it cannot be refused or denied. C) Your conscious decisions and life choices have no effect on this.
Herein lies much of our disagreement.
Here's an experiment, for the next week try to hate God. See how well you do.
I've done it. I still do it, though hopefully less.
Here's a quick summary of the theology - God's love does not shine on some and not on others. It can be refused, denied, contradicted.. we can make choices to, in essence, hate God.
To state these choices in the negative, we can choose to be ignorant, unmindful, forgetful, unwise, hating, selfish and prideful. All of these choices, in essence, are hating God. We can experience this cause and effect directly. If we pay attention.
What your experiment entails in short is that I increase my pride. I can choose to do this. It is a constant spriritual exercise not to.
If we choose to become more aware, mindful, wise, loving, remembering, selfless.. then God's love, for all, will become realized in us and through us. It is not a limited resource; the more we love the more love we have to give.
In this way, Jesus's teaching and ministry and His commandments are seen more clearly, more directly. Each person can do your experiment - positively and negatively - a see for themself.
You attack OSAS but don't define what you are attacking.
Once Saved Always Saved. The doctrine in its various forms. Its a term of art in Protestant theology.
Lord help us all. The Protestants believe that satan does God’s will.
Without qualification you claim THE PROTESTANTS, a universal statement is it not?
I'll not ask for an apology where none is called for. I will however be looking for you to admit the utter inanity of your claim.
Please define OSAS. Certainly you aren't attacking OSAS in all it's various forms are you?
If you throw enough mud (I'm chicken) up against the wall some of it will stick. Throw away.
Inanity?
Martin Luther said that “Even the devil is God’s devil.”
Shall I look up Zwingli next to see what his beliefs were?
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.