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.
My point is that there is only one Church, and in that Church are Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and anyone else who has Christ as his savior and Lord.
Is your salvation dependent upon your membership in the Roman Catholic Church?
Is your salvation dependent upon your membership in the Orthodox Church?
Is that truth kept hidden in some secret vault, or has the Orthodox Church seen fit to share that “whole truth, the full truth and nothing but,” with the rest of Christianity?
Is your salvation dependent upon your membership in the Roman Catholic Church?
Membership in? No. Communion with? Yes.
-A8
I'm actually glad it got the reaction it did from non Catholics. A lot of people here showed their true colors.
What do you mean "Communion with"?
First thing you have to do is get the correct translation...The right translation says elders...Not priests...
And how do we know this is so??? Because even your own Catholic bible says:
1Pe 2:5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
We are all a holy priesthood...Your very own Catholic bible confirms this...Jerome's translation...
So you can't have priests that are set apart from the priesthood...Wouldn't make sense...
So, there is no such thing as a church constitution that has priests...
The priesthood you refer to was done away with when Jesus became the atonement for ALL our sins...We no longer need priests to make atonement for us...
We are to offer spiritual sacrifices to God...Not flesh and blood...
The spiritual sacrifices are prayer, putting off the 'old' man, allowing God to do good works thru us, etc...
Most of the venom being displayed on this thread is directed at the Protestants.
-A8
It wouldn't make sense to those holding only a univocal conception of priesthood.
-A8
NO one had the INDWELLING Holy Spirit until Pentacost. In the OT time ( of which the gospels are a part ,being BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ ), the Holy Spirit was ON men not IN them . On Pentecost all that were in the upper room received Christ's gift to the Church, the indwelling Holy Spirit to all those that believed. The Holy Spirit was NOT restricted to the apostles, He indwells all that that are saved.
All those that come in faith to Christ have the indwelling Holy Spirit
Instead, he had chosen others specifically for these positions of leadership. It was not simply a communal congregation talking about Jesus and doing works according to his teachings; there were clearly those in positions of power and leadership.
Could you show us that in scripture?. Jesus chose 12 men to be his apostles, but all that followed Him and were faithful had the Holy Spirit after Pentecost. The apostles sat under the direct teaching of Christ for 3 years, they were to lead the evangelization of jews and Gentiles.
It appears from scripture that the New church had something like a "board of directors" to whom disputes were taken and that helped with the organization . But no where does it say in Scripture that the role of apostle was to remain apart of the church, no where does jesus tell them they can "pass on" the spiritual gifts given to them for the specific purpose of building the new church.
However, the positions they were put in forced them into leadership roles which were unheard of at the time. Much like many Jews sought a King or Warlord Messiah, and, as such, would not recognize the Suffering Messiah, Jesus appointed Servant Leaders, a tradition which continues today and the Church recognizes; one of the titles the Pope goes by is "Servus Servorum Dei" - Servant of the Servants of God.
Peter said he was an elder, like the other elders in the church. He did not "fancy himself "pope" or the "vicar of Christ"
There is NO scriptural foundation for the papacy, priesthood, and most of the Catholic 7 sacraments
Can you how me that in scripture? Who instituted baptism? Do you know?
one must be baptized and beleive to enter the kingdom (attain salvation) which is hard to do while following false prophets and or falls doctrines, ergo one need follow true prophets and correct doctrines.
so now you’re finally admitting that the rest of Christianity doesn’t have the truth...
My very favorite passage from Scripture of late is Matthew 7:6.
If he believes in a particular set of doctrines and traditions, then he will follow those as if they were infallible.
If he believes in a religious organization, then he will follow that religious organization as if it were infallible.
If he believes God, then he will follow God Who actually is infallible.
Of course, many will suggest that these can be conflated, but they cannot be; man cannot serve two masters (much less three or four.) One will always reign supreme in his heart and mind. And the one he is trusting is the one to whom he has committed his fate.
On the points raised by fr maximilian mary and Frumanchu - as I have asserted before, Spiritual succession is the only one that matters.
It is entirely possible for an assembly of men once led by God to lose its way even to the point of being rejected by God. Paul warns us of this in Romans 11 (boast not against the branches.) It is also entirely possible for that very same assembly to be once again restored by God. (also Romans 11)
But in every case, it is God's will that matters. He gives the Holy Spirit according to His will, not ours.
So, in my point of view, those rough spots in the history of the Catholic Church do not bother me - nor do the bright spots impress me. Only God matters.
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.