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.
I'm having trouble with my Google. I need help . Google
Well, I better be careful here, I can tell..
Oppose all Once Saved Always Saved... hmm...
Do I mean by “oppose” disapprove of or attempt to prevent, or actively resist or refuse to comply with or disagree with...
And by “all” do I mean all past uses of the term or can it include present and future uses..? Or should I confine it to the “P” in Tulip or should it include other denominations use of the term “Eternal Security” or..
And by “all” do this mean all theological uses only - or if a bank adverstises “Once Saved Always Saved” would I oppose that (depending on what ‘oppose’ means here), and what’s the interest rate?
And whether I’m “ducking” do you mean lowering my head or body quickly to avoid a blow or moving out of view so as not to be seen, or...
I’m gonna have to ponder all these things to get back to you in a more precise manner as requested.
Let us examine this passage more closely:
:::his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness:::
Servant of one versus the other. No quantitative difference in the quality of the service. No support there.
:::ye were the servants of sin:::
Servants, not slaves.
:::ye became the servants of righteousness:::
Servants, not slaves.
:::for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness:::
Servant of one versus the other. No quantitative difference in the quality of the service. No support there.
:::ye were the servants of sin:::
Servants, not slaves.
:::But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God:::
Servants, not slaves.
Harley, the verses quoted lend no support to the supposition that man has no free will before the Holy Spirit invades him, since the words and the phrasing is EXACTLY the same for servant to God versus servant to sin.
They however, indicate that the ability of man to choose (servant = free will, slave = forced) is equal in either choosing evil or God. I’m afraid that these verses support the Catholic position on free will and repudiate the Reformed position.
I don’t see this as accidental, friend. I think that you’re testing the waters for current, temperature etc. :)
In the meanwhile you can tell me who created the Devil.
Catholics worship Mary! Well, some do so I can make that claim freely can't I?
All right, you have a point.
Since each denomination or individual is or has their own pope, and given the extreme variation in beliefs on any one subject, then I would agree that that is a general statement that does not necessarily apply to each and every individual Protestant (what did you say that your belief was? I think I missed it).
If the vast majority of Protestants believed it as a matter of their own dectrine, would you consider it an admissible statement though? If the Reformers believed it, then many of their splinter groups would have retained that belief.
Who created satan?
Well, God created all the angels, and Lucifer was an angel. God created Lucifer.
Lucifer made himself into satan.
The answer was not made in charitable fashion, but I appreciate the sentiment.
It is what the Catholic faith teaches. Neither I nor any man can know who gets everlasting damnation until the Judge levies His Judgement. The ones who claim to know that are, in our belief, wrong.
I may look askance at some of your posts, but I don’t get to make the rules; the good Book says that man will judge angels, but I don’t see where men will judge men.
But the Bible doesn’t say that we cannot engage in exuberant discourse on FR.
If the vast majority of Protestants believed it as a matter of their own dectrine, would you consider it an admissible statement though?
You have no idea, nor probably do "Protestants" what the Protestant belief concerning the relationship between God and Satan really is. Your question is meaningless.
(what did you say that your belief was? I think I missed it).
You didn't miss it. I didn't say. Did God create Satan? (I must have missed your answer.)
Check post 10,867 for my answer.
:::Wrong! Pope is an invented office and no Protestant has a Pope.:::
What was James I for the Anglicans? Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwingli?
How about John Smyth? John Smith? Mary Baker Eddy?
:::You have no idea, nor probably do “Protestants” what the Protestant belief concerning the relationship between God and Satan really is. Your question is meaningless.:::
Strictly speaking, all one has to do with doctrinal Protestants is to look at their doctrines, and do some counting. The non doctrinal Protestants, well, you do have a point.
All things come from God, including our faith. As St. Cyprian stated, "There is not anything you have that has not been given to you." including your faith. This is what most people wish to deny these days thinking they can ascend to the heavens by their choice. That didn't work long ago and it still doesn't work.
No, because that is what the Bible says.
***Do you think believe in this theology because you believe that you are going to heaven and therefore going to hell is not an option for you?***
If I believe that I am saved by the blood of the Lamb, and Christ says that not one of his own will be lost, that he has come to save all that his Father in heaven has given him, and if I believe that Jesus paid the price for all my sins, why would I think that I am going somewhere other than heaven?
***Interesting theology.***
Glad you think so. Interested in signing up? :>)
He never says Scripture alone or Tradition alone.Blessed Augustine relied on Scripture,Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, Just like we Catholics do today.
Go back and read post 10,817 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1870079/posts?page=10817#10817
Look at the full picture. All of it, and not part of it.
I wish you a Blessed Evening
Trick question: Which of these would you say is identical with the Scriptures?
Alright, I don't see it, but I'll try to answer anyway. :) I would say that "word" can reasonably refer to a few things. One would be the scriptures, God's Holy word. Another would be every word God ever spoke, many of which are not recorded in scriptures. Another could refer to the power of God's word, such as in:
Matt 8:16-17 : 16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases."
Now, "Word" OTOH, I think refers exclusively to the person of Jesus Christ.
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.