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.
Male, yes.
And with enough of his mother in him to still keep me guessing as to how he’s going to turn out.
His five siblings, all much younger, now I have them pegged.
Remember, there are Liberal Protestant churches out there just as there are Liberal Catholic churches out there.
Hm, hard to say what will keep him in line. I know that all I had to do was show my daughters date my gun collection, and inform him that I loved her more than “20 to life” itself and I rarely had a problem :>)
To keep the analogy complete, the Catholic view is that God creates His children and then stands by them.
As opposed to creating them, picking the select out of the mix and abandoning the rest of them.
We do not believe that we are kittens to be drowned except at God’s whim.
God bless you for your devotion to the kids.
We as a society treat our children abominably. We feed them crap. We have them watch TVs and movies and Internet feeds full of crap. We give them everything except our love and devotion. We sexualize them, and bombard them with things that they shouldn’t understand. We don’t let them grow up naturally.
No wonder the current crop of teens act like they do.
Fortunately, the liberals have tended towards certain groups like the Jesuits, where they can be isolated and handled. Unfortunately, they have also infiltrated the schools, necessitating reforms in places like BC and ND, and causing schools like Ave Maria to be built.
The whole point is that we don’t wish to have liberal or conservative churches. We have the Catholic Church that is one, not many. If somebody wants to nail a new proclamation up, he can do so. But the Church is the Church, regardless of any individual who wishes to become his or her own pope.
St. Paul refers to the Spirit of God in the OT sense, as a power of God and not of a divine Hypostasis. It is clear that he does not speak of the Spirit in the trinitarian sense.
St. Paul places God above Christ when he says on numerous occasions that God raised Christ. Christ is not subordinate to God, which is why the Nicence Creed specifically says "He rose on the third day..." in other words, God raised Himself.
There is also a reference in the NT when Jesus says that the "Father is greater than I" which the Apostolic Church interprets as Christ speaking in His human nature, and some Christian groups as meaning that Christ is a "lesser" God.
We never claimed that she didn't need a Savior. In fact, she was the first to recieve Christ. You comment is pathetic imo.
But these variations cross denominational lines. Protestant sects are rleigious parties akin to the Pharisees and Sadducees, and not to "churches." Thus you have about 10% Southern Baptists who are "Reformed" (Calvinist) just as as Presbyterians who can be Calvinist or closer to Episcopelians in their views. Yet Calvinist Baptists who deny the free will have no issues with non-Calvinist Baptists who believe in free will and worship together.
Protestant "theology" is personal opinion based on reason. But faith based on reason is man-made naked rationalism. Which is why logic plays such a prominent role in many of these "theologies," especially in legalistic Calvinism.
Protestants belong to denominations based on personal and politcial factors as well. I know a couple in Virginia who changed from a Methodist church to a Presbyterian (USA) church because the spouse's ex-husband still goes to the Methodist church! And the current husband used to be Pentacostal and has no problems now sharing his divergent theology with Prebyterians, nor does his Methodist wife ("raised Methodist, bene Methgodist all my life" to quote her) have probles being with Presbyterians either.
One of the Freepers on this forum stated that he would switch to a Calvinist church in a heartbeat if one opened next to his (even though he doesn't believe in 'baby splashing'—a Baptist euphamism for infant baptism)
This shows that there is no "church" per se, but different assemblies to which people flock for many reasons, mainly personal. They also go "church-shopping" a lot. It's always about "me" and what fits "my notion of God" as "I understand it." So, people look for like-minded communtiies and call them "churches." Which is what this whole thread is really about. :)
Some Protestants have stable views just as some people have stable views on different subjects, say a cosmologist on the necessity of "dark energy" to exist in order for the equation to work. But in either case it's a man-made system, stable as it may be.
However, If you compare the views of two or more such individuals you will find divergence on key issues (Christology, Trinity, free will, etc.) even though thye may worship in the same denominational community thye call a "church."
So, now personal experience counts as absolute truth? My experience has been that America claims to be a religious country and yet lives a very secular, immoral and nasty lifestyle that is anything but religious.
Protestantism is anything goes because every individual makes up his or her own theology and his or her own god just the way he or she likes it, just as they make up their own speed limit, rules and what not. It's narcissistic and egocentric.
Saint Augustine sums this up where it makes absolute sense to me when he says....
“You hear the Lord himself declare: ‘It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you’. Likewise you hear the Apostle declare: ‘God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts’. Could there then be two spirits, one the spirit of the Father, the other the spirit of the Son? Certainly not. Just as there is only one Father, just as there is only one Lord or one Son, so there is only one Spirit, Who is, consequently, the Spirit of both. . . Why then should you refuse to believe that He proceeds also from the Son, since He is also the Spirit of the Son? If He did not proceed from Him, Jesus, when He appeared to His disciples after His Resurrection, would not have breathed on them, saying: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost’. What, indeed, does this breathing signify, but that the Spirit proceeds also from Him?” (De Trin. II, 5, 7-10; IV, 18, 24 )
The Holy Spirit, as regards His existence, proceeds only from the Father. That is the most fundamental revealed truth about the Spirit and the dogma of the Church of the Seven Councils. There is only one cause of the Spirit, the Father, who is the cause of everything and all, just as the Father is the cause of the Son.
As far as I know the Latin Church does not teach double origin. The Father is the source of both the Son and the Spirit.
The Greek word used for proceed is ekpouremai, which, unlike the Latin translation, implies origin.
The Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, some years back, pretty much settled this issue by acknowledging the above. The Orthodox agree that the Spirit is sent by the Father as well as the Son, that Both share the same Spirit (this is made perfectly clear in the Palamite doctrines that pretty much represent official Orthodox teaching), but it is of utmost importance to realize that the Father is the source of the Spirit as far as His existence is concerned, and that the Son is not the source; double origin or double source is not the doctrine of the Church, never was and never will be. It is extremely important to distinguish the source of existence of the Spirit as being only the Father, thus preserving the monarchy of the Father.
Your thesis makes a lot of sense.
It does explain the church shopping phenomenon amongst many of my Protestant friends. One of my engineers back in Indiana changed churches every few years - a strong fundamentalist, he liked the various forms of the Church of Christ, but had been to some fundamentalist evangelical and independent churches; I believe that he had some conservative Baptist roots as well. A disagreeable and pushy person, he would inevitably get in to some sort of dispute with either the pastor or the managers of the church and leave in a huff.
Specific denomininational rules and such really didn’t come into consideration for him, now that I come to think of it. My mother’s parents were out of the Methodist and United Church of Christ denomination; yet my uncle, his wife and my grandmother wound up at the Salvation Army.
You have a very convincing argument that I find myself in agreement with. I wonder if our Protestant brethren will weigh in.
Paul talks of the Spirit as a separate entity of the Trinity. He uses “he” when refering to the Spirit, not “it.”
My little grandson is three on the 20th of Nov. His name is (are you ready for this?) Calvin :>)
He has yet to watch a TV show or a video. His father reads to him from the Bible every day, whenever Boompa (me)comes, we read the Bible, and he sits in church every Sunday with the family. The kids vocabulary if amazing, and he retains what he listens to.
***To keep the analogy complete, the Catholic view is that God creates His children and then stands by them.***
The Protestant view is that God created all things, and then chose some to add blessing to. Those he chose to recieve eternal life love him forever, those he did not choose, ignore him, run from him, hate him. All of this is found in the Bible.
In your case, if God creates and then stands by them, how do you explain the fact that some never know him, never worship him, some are indeed sent to hell? That would mean that God is not powerful enough to save his children, or that he doesn’t care enough to save them. Either way, it doesn’t appear to be the God of the Bible.
Argggh, not another Calvin. Maybe he can work at overcoming it. :)
Sounds like a good family. Are they going to add to it?
I prefer it when the kids sit with the family. I’ve been in a couple of Lutheran and CoC churches where they gathered up the kids and took them away during the service.
That way the kids are exposed to the real deal, and not some play group.
I don’t know who gets to experience everlasting hellfire, but all indications are that they are those who reach out for sin instead of God; they reject His Grace. We understand that God’s Grace is for all men. God knows that some will reject Him; He will gather the many; he does not reject any man any more than the father of the prodigal son rejected him. But just as the prodigal son was enabled to return to his father, all men are enabled to come to God.
As to the virtuous pagans, that is outside our knowledge. We are instructed to evangelize and bring the Word of God to all. But what will happen to them is up to God; we will be judged on how many we have or haven’t brought the Word of God to. How many did we feed or clothe or visit? How did we treat the lest of our brethren?
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.