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.
As far as I am concerned, God is able to do with his creation as he wishes, and none of us has the right to complain about it.
If that involves killing babies, old people, middle aged hippies, insolvent bankers, or whatever, that is his right. He created us, he has the right to do with us as he wishes. And whatever he decides to do is righteous and just and perfect in him.
***Wrong. Protestants in general obey Papal teaching which they accept as correct, not because the Pope teaches it but because it is correct.
It is more accurate to say Protestants don’t obey Papal teaching simply because the Pope “said so”.***
I would say that we Protestants hold to the teachings of the Pope as long as scripture doesn’t disagree. When scripture disagrees with the Pope, guess who I am believing in?
Thanks for your reply. I understand God can do what He wishes. I don’t see this as a debate about that, but rather about loving God.
I also believe that no man can love God without His express allowance to do so. No man has the ability to love God until he is born again. Up to that point, no man seeks God, no man desires God, no man can please God.
Where we start to differ is we believe God allows all men to love Him. Or perhaps more accurately to return His love or be in communion through love.
I’ll have to go with Paul on this one. Romans 3:9-18.
We can prove either way using scripture.
Well, somebody has to be wrong! :>)
I suppose so. So what next?
Does all we know of God and love come from scripture?
That is a straw man, FK. Protestants will pray with anyone, whether they share their beliefs or not. That is the kind relativism that puts any absolute truth about God into question. It says that everyone knows a little bit of the truth and that the truth is not known to anyone.
I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine. What I meant was that when we say that Holy Spirit leads us in matters of faith and interpretation, your side says "NO HE DOESN'T, He only leads the men of my Church". That is an artificial shackling of the Holy Spirit by your men because those of us who are a part of God's Church, but are outside of your portion of it, have no access to leadership by the Spirit on the most important matters. That is, according to your men. They believe they have the ability to restrict the freedom of the Spirit.
All of this was in the context of the Spirit leading a person from one Bible-believing church to another. You were arguing that such would be a personal and possibly inconsistent, faith-denying decision. You could only make that assessment by restricting the Holy Spirit from leading on such a matter.
And as for Protestants praying with anyone, as I child of God of course I will "pray with" anyone. When we go forth to all nations making disciples we "pray with" the lost all the time. Now, if you mean pray side by side then your statement couldn't be further from the truth. There are many "Protestant" doors I would never darken. Now, if I came to visit your church would you criticize me for praying side by side with you? :)
What's your view of the Westminster Confession?
There is no lucifer in the (OT) Bible. It was St. Jerome's (Vulgate) creation, using the Babylonian morning star diety as subject which only Christianity (through Apochrypha, and no doubt through Babylonian and Persian influence) taught, not Judaism.
And please don't quote Isaiah and his refreence to the Phoenician king who believed himself to be god.
Thank you.
The OT shows that this permissiveness of God goes further than that (i.e. Job), and that Satan, as all other angels is simply an obedient servant of God. There is no adversity between God of the OT and Satan.
The Christian demonology comes into play after Zoroasternism influend certain religious groups in Israel. Fall angels are mentioned in the so-called Apocryphal books, which are quoted as authoritative in the NT (i.e. Jude).
MLG to Kosta (leaving out FK): Now that is a strawman. Protestants who hold to "sola scriptura" do not
Really? Well, that's not what FK tells me. In reply #11,030 he specifically says:
This is why I can't take anything from Protestants as credible.
I agree there is a lot of symbolism in that. In our church, whenever the Pastor reads anywhere from scripture he asks us to stand, (him) saying "in honor of God's word". That is quite a difference. I'm sure it goes to our differing views on what the Bible is, where it came from, and what authority it has.
I only established that (1) it is impossible to find a Trinitarian formula in St. Paul's writings and (2) that he refers to the "spirit of God" in a Judaic manner, as grace, and not as the third Person of the Holy Trinity.
I don't see how you established these things. I see how you declared them. :) If Paul really didn't understand the personhood of Holy Spirit, then your real criticism is of Christ Himself for faulty teaching. Paul says himself that everything he teaches is not from man but from Christ directly.
Obviously, the apostolic successors did, through divine revelation, establish the dogma of the Holy Trinity from the Holy Scriptures, indirectly. So, their authority in that respect is undisputed as far as I know by mainline Protestants. It is disputed only when it runs against Protestant innovations.
I'm not sure how many Protestants recognize the authority of Apostolic successors. :) Anyone can fairly deduce the Trinity from the scriptures. IOW, I don't believe in the Trinity because anyone's Church says so, I believe it because it is supported by scriptures.
MLG to Kosta (leaving out FK —again!): Did God ask you if you wanted to be born into this world? Did God get your permission to be created? Yes or no?
Note: MLG, it is customary and considerate and polite and proper to include a person involved in your replies.
God created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve created the rest of us by natural laws established by God.
God does not cause a rapist to impregnate a raped woman any more than He forces a married couple to have children they cannot support, or a teenager to become pregnant and abandon the baby. Those are our decisions.
It seems to me you are suggesting that God is behind all the evil we commit.
The Church does not teach that we are reponsible for our own salvation. Only God saves us. We are responsible for our wickedness and perdition.
MLG: Thus you are the ultimate cause of salvation
Nope. God makes the offer. WE must either accept or reject His grace. You do admit that we can reject His grace, right? We can choose to stay wicked, right?
God gives us a choice. Come to Him and be saved, or reject Him and perish. Your formula is a partial God (the bible make sit very clear that God is impartial) who leaves us no choice. Believe what you want. The choices you make in life carry consequnces and the responsibility for those consequences are entirely yours. That inlcudes giving ourselves to God.
You are confusing Protestant religious parties (i.e. "churches") with the true Church of Christ. There was no compromise. That's why there were so many who left the Church in heresy.
Dear Kosta, thanks for your response in post #10954.I have been very busy and doing some catch up
I wish you a Blessed Evening
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.